Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 182 posts

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#91

Post by westmeal »

jasaloo wrote: post #77
davesque wrote: post #11

A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest . Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates o…

I hear you. Liu's outlook is deeply pessimistic. His obvious scientific background knowledge seems to be infused with a dash of western, neoliberal ideology-- that it's just dog-eat-dog out there, and we're all in it for our own self-interest. It's a bit ironic considering Liu is Chinese- wasn't China's Ming Dynasty the first to land on America in the early 1400s and historically demonstrate that exploration and disc…

>that Colombus et al enslaved/raped/pillaged because that's just what societies do (while ignoring that it was the debt that the explorers owed to their financiers that drove most of that bad behavior).

Would you mind extrapolating on that a bit? In my totally 'unbiased' and 'truthful' American public school they never mentioned a word of this. I've always wanted to learn more about the real origins of this broken country.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#92

Post by derp_dee_derp »

KirinDave wrote: post #88
derp_dee_derp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as economic violence either. The word you are looking for is discrimination.

Why is there no such thing? Because you say so? That exact phrase appears to be in common usage globally. Given that, who's actually out of step with reality here? The word discrimination describes what an discriminator does. Violence usually applied to what a victim experiences. Surely we can imagine a scenario where someone experiences violence without discrimination occuring.

you. you are the one out of step with reality.

here is the dictionary definition of violence for your reference.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#93

Post by shmed »

013a wrote: post #63
davesque wrote: post #11

A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest . Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates o…

Its an interesting theory. IMO: the difficulty of destroying a civilization is probably harder than communicating with them, and the advantages of keeping one around probably outweigh the advantages of killing them if you're already more technically advanced. A big point in TDF is that the speed of light limits our ability to communicate and understand other civilizations. But, by extension, weapons are also limited…

Cixin book covers those aspect pretty well. One of the main element behind his version of the Dark Forest theory is something he calls the "Chain of suspicion". He argues that in a world were communication is limited by the speed of light, there's no way to establish a coherent dialog during first contact between two civilizations that would allow you to completely trust the other party. If you cannot trust that the other party will not destroy you given the chance, then the only way for you to be guaranteed not to be destroyed is to destroy them first. Even if both parties want peace, there's no way for you to convince the other party that you want peace without also giving them the time to destroy you. It's basically a game theory situation where trying to go for peaceful communication is way too risky, and the stake in play are the survival of your civilization. It's also implied that civilization that played the "peace" card will simply get eliminated the moment they encounter someone playing the "destroy" card, making you much less likely to actually encounter a peaceful civilization.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#94

Post by Freaky »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #33
davesque wrote: post #11

A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest . Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates o…

Regarding how long it takes to travel between habitable systems- Cixin Liu, like most other hard sci-fi authors, and everybody else who thinks about those things, seems to assume that lightspeed is just as problematic for everyone else as it is for us humans. And yet we have no way to know that for sure. We have no idea what the average lifespan of an intelligent species is. It may just be that humans are particularl…

> Cixin Liu, like most other hard sci-fi authors, and everybody else who thinks about those things, seems to assume that lightspeed is just as problematic for everyone else as it is for us humans.

... the primary weapon of the Trisolans in the first book are subatomic ansible faeries.

I thought it was kind of funny, because the whole point behind the Dark Forest theory is that it emerges because aliens are so unknowable, there can never be proper trust between them. Yet a relatively young and slowly-developing race is literally more sure of what humanity is doing than we are of our neighbouring countries.

"Hard sci-fi", pfft :P

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#95

Post by derp_dee_derp »

KirinDave wrote: post #86
derp_dee_derp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tweets and internet posts are not violence.

I'm fairly certain that I did not describe tweets. I describe information and identity disclosures that led to significant negative outcomes for individuals. That the internet is their delivery medium is not particularly important to the outcome, but it is the subject of the conversation here.

> Or lost their job because of a tweet about men being sexisg.

a direct quote from your comment. you describe tweets.

how do you not remember what you just wrote?

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#96

Post by Freaky »

asark wrote: post #67
davesque wrote: post #11

A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest . Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates o…

Oh boy, read Blindsight by Peter Watts. Kinda similar idea but more deeply dreadful . Messed me up for days. Now added to the pile labeled "Existentially Horrifying Crap I have to Not Think About to Make It Through Another Day".

Link, along with much of his other work: https://rifters.com/real/shorts.htm

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#97

Post by KirinDave »

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #92
KirinDave wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there no such thing? Because you say so? That exact phrase appears to be in common usage globally. Given that, who's actually out of step with reality here? The word discrimination describes what an discriminator does. Violence usually applied to what a victim experiences. Surely we can imagine a scenario where someone experiences violence without discrimination occuring.

you. you are the one out of step with reality. here is the dictionary definition of violence for your reference. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

There are 4 senses of the word and only 1 names physical violence.

Thank you for helping my argument, but we can all check the dictionary on our own time.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#98

Post by KirinDave »

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #95
KirinDave wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly certain that I did not describe tweets. I describe information and identity disclosures that led to significant negative outcomes for individuals. That the internet is their delivery medium is not particularly important to the outcome, but it is the subject of the conversation here.

> Or lost their job because of a tweet about men being sexisg. a direct quote from your comment. you describe tweets. how do you not remember what you just wrote?

To quote myself: "describe information and identity disclosures that led to significant negative outcomes for individuals."

The violence is the disclosure. That it is a tweet doesn't matter anymore than the ammunition type used in a fatal shooting is uninteresting to most victims.

> how do you not remember what you just wrote?

How do you not read more than one sentence of what I just wrote? It's difficult to see your response as anything but a disingenuous reading.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#99

Post by KirinDave »

matz1 wrote: post #89
KirinDave wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fairly certain that if I organized a campaign of robbery against people who use hacker news you would not be opposed to calling that violence even if I didn't need to resort to physical violence to get your money. It doesn't really matter though, "violence" does not need to be physical as per the dictionary definition. nor in common usage is it uncommon to talk about violence in many senses. You're free to defin…

Unless you or someone else actually do the robbery physically then I wouldn't call it violent. There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.

Okay, but we just had another person cite the dictionary and only one of the four senses agrees with you. Searching for "economic violence" brings up literally millions of hits.

> There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.

I just want to press down firmly on this since I doubt you've thought it through. If you held to this standard of words having meaning, then you'd believe that language can't evolve. The Dictionary reflects usage so broadly common it ought to be universally recognized. It's a lagging indicator.

So if folks can't use words in recognizable senses, They're just universally better.what criterion do dictionaries use to recognize "enough people use it that way?"

Ultimately, "The dictionary says otherwise" is a circular argument. It's like witnessing a breaking news event and saying, "Well the newspaper didn't say so, so it isn't true!" Of course they haven't written about it... yet. The recognition for a dictionary is in response to the meaning that folks are already, not the source. The dictionary derives its authority from our usage.

Therefore, if millions of people use the term "economic violence" then it is a valid use of that term, even if you do find it challenging. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue otherwise, because the fact that you recognized what the term meant and therefore could object was evidence itself that it exists.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#100

Post by tomxor »

013a wrote: post #63
davesque wrote: post #11

A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest . Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates o…

Its an interesting theory. IMO: the difficulty of destroying a civilization is probably harder than communicating with them, and the advantages of keeping one around probably outweigh the advantages of killing them if you're already more technically advanced. A big point in TDF is that the speed of light limits our ability to communicate and understand other civilizations. But, by extension, weapons are also limited…

> But life is probably special; maybe humanity would make great trading partners, maybe our brains function differently and can solve problems differently, maybe our natural proclivity for war would make us great allies, or maybe we'd make great slaves for the mines on the Vartoth 12 colony.

Slight digression, and I know your half joking but: I always find the believability lacking in sci-fi that suggest a civilisation capable of faster than light travel could possibly be interested in trading commodities or manual labour of another. Such a feat provides unlimited access to the universe, all materials and energy you could ever need, such a civilisation would likely have basically achieved alchemy transmutation (but for real).

Then, the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness, our information, our culture and likely very different perspective of the universe... as you put it "our brains function differently", and they most definitely would, even if only at a cultural level rather than fundamental level. That is something that cannot be obtained anywhere else in the universe, even with FTL, because it's endemic.

Post reply on HN