Raw LLM Responses

>Response: The selection algorithm can be designed so as to ensure the maintenance of some optimum age distribution through the population. >Response: The system would not allow transplants to people who brought their misfortunes upon themselves. Very well, these two responses are really just clarifying the thought experiment by admitting that such a system requires an infeasible level of knowledge on the part of the system. >Response: That fear would be irrational. The system would actually reduce their chances of randomly dying, and even then, those chances likely would not be higher than the risk associated with driving or crossing the street. Whether or not such fears would be irrational does not matter, you have to count the obvious displeasure and fear that people would feel as part of the costs and benefits. And there are reasons that people would fear the lottery more: this very system allows hope for the sick and no recourse for healthy lottery losers. >Response: Y and Z would point out that the current system does not seem to value their individuality very much. >Response: Y and Z would say that whether you implement the Survival Lottery or not, you are still "playing God" with people's lives. If we choose not to implement the survival lottery, we are choosing to kill Y and Z (as far as they are concerned). >Response: Again, to Y and Z, it doesn't feel like you are letting them die. More generally, if we know that the Survival Lottery would save more lives than it would cost, and we still choose not to implement it, we are more involved than just letting people die. All three of these responses share the thread of reframing the issue from Y and Z's perspective, which is odd because we have very obvious reasons to doubt their evaluation of the justice of the situation. Of course they support a system which harms another for their own benefit. They are in a highly partial position. But let us consider what has happened to Y, Z, an