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

161–170 of 182 posts

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#161

Post by knowaveragejoe »

hannasanarion wrote: post #118
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…

There are several reasons not to fear Dark Forest, chief among them, 1. Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort. 2. If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy…

Regarding number 2, wouldn't this potentially risk your discovery as well? An entire galaxy having its habitable planets destroyed would surely be detectable in some fashion.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#162

Post by knowaveragejoe »

hannasanarion wrote: post #160
013a wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort. It's more accurate to say that HUMANITY would need a cooperative spirit in order to reach interstellar travel. I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this. And, beyond that, TDF addresses this through…

> It's more accurate to say that HUMANITY would need a cooperative spirit in order to reach interstellar travel. I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this. How do you build a spaceship without working together with others? > Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do. Who said the m…

> How do you build a spaceship without working together with others?

Ants don't build colonies because they consciously choose to participate in the greater good as individuals. It's pure instinct for them to work together. Imagine if some were more intelligent and could shape or direct that instinct. A "hive mind" if you will.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#163

Post by camelite »

KirinDave wrote: post #147
camelite wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.

You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically.

> You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard.

Add? Put them back where you took them from, rather. You can claim that until the cows come home and it will still be true that jlawson hasn't accused you of violence.

> Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake?

Cute, but no deal.

> Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically.

The article was on the front page when I clicked it. You last comment was about three hours old when I commented.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#164

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

Freaky wrote: post #157
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+++ SPOILERS +++ Eh, they had inside information (the Earth-Trisolaran Organisation was in contact with them). And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons , not actual fairies found in the magical forest of Elthrolien that had to be seduced with promises of space mead. That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technolog…

> And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies Does mentioning your faeries are made out of atoms stop them being fantasy? > That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic. Sure, I mean, even Star Wars is still considered within the genre despite it all being completely made-up - but…

My opinion on this might be controversial but I think there's very little difference between even "hard" sci-fi and all-out fantasy (but, with spaceships). There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible.

Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature.

I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#165

Post by ColanR »

notduncansmith wrote: post #113
ColanR wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, game theory bears out that observation. [1] Trust is difficult to cultivate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

True, but I think there’s more hope when you take superrationality[1] into account. Multiple actors can independently arrive at compatible cooperative solutions to the survival-and-utility game (which is not zero-sum). Wikipedia says it assumes all other players are also superrational, but I think in practice a successful variant of this strategy is to identify whether other players are superrational and avoid them i…

It would be nice if we were all superrational, but that concept just explains away the entire problem of the prisoner's dillemma: the dilemma serves to highlight our mutual lack of trust, and superrationality simply says, 'what if we did trust each other'? Since the assumptions of superrationality would be naive and foolish for any of those prisoners to assume, it solves nothing.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#166

Post by notduncansmith »

ColanR wrote: post #165
notduncansmith wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but I think there’s more hope when you take superrationality[1] into account. Multiple actors can independently arrive at compatible cooperative solutions to the survival-and-utility game (which is not zero-sum). Wikipedia says it assumes all other players are also superrational, but I think in practice a successful variant of this strategy is to identify whether other players are superrational and avoid them i…

It would be nice if we were all superrational, but that concept just explains away the entire problem of the prisoner's dillemma: the dilemma serves to highlight our mutual lack of trust, and superrationality simply says, 'what if we did trust each other'? Since the assumptions of superrationality would be naive and foolish for any of those prisoners to assume, it solves nothing.

The idea is not to assume that everyone will be superrational or trustworthy at the beginning of the game.

I believe it’s possible for the superrational players in a game to become the majority by expressing the superrational strategy in terms that will appeal to rationally self-interested players and demonstrating a superrational strategy working at some non-trivial scale.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#168

Post by krapp »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #105
jacobush wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So time and place dictates what is SciFi now? That's an awfully awkward measure which will cut away a lot of SciFi. Though, I agree Star Wars is not very sci fi, it's a fantasy epic with sci-fi stuffs in it.

What makes Star Wars a fantasy series and not sci-fi is that it doesn't even try to be sci-fi. It's a fantasy story reskinned with robots and spaceships. Not being sci-fi doesn't have much to do with being set in the past vs. the future (BSG spoiler alert: for example, Battlestar: Galactica is a proper sci-fi and happens to be set in the past).

>Battlestar: Galactica is a proper sci-fi and happens to be set in the past

Battlestar Galactica - the Christian allegory with angels and gods and literal miracles reskinned with robots and spaceships?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that's all anyone has here, including myself: opinions. There is no objective and universally accepted definition of science fiction which requires rigid conformity to scientific principles, or a lack of mythological or religious themes. The lines people draw between "science fiction" "science fantasy" and even "fantasy" are based on marketing and personal taste.

Star Wars is sci-fi, no less so than Galactica or even Star Trek, and all of it is also science fantasy. These aren't separate categories, but poles on a spectrum of speculative fiction.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#169

Post by c0vfefe »

ethbro wrote: post #75
beat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there's some prior art. But it's not necessary or relevant to cite the prior art when talking about a specific work. If you read carefully, you'll find I didn't claim he was the originator, because duh.

I was taking issue with the medium post. "In his sci-fi trilogy The Three Body Problem, author Liu Cixin presents the dark forest theory of the universe." "Liu invites us to think about this a different way."

"Present" ≠ "invent."

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#170

Post by ColanR »

notduncansmith wrote: post #166
ColanR wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice if we were all superrational, but that concept just explains away the entire problem of the prisoner's dillemma: the dilemma serves to highlight our mutual lack of trust, and superrationality simply says, 'what if we did trust each other'? Since the assumptions of superrationality would be naive and foolish for any of those prisoners to assume, it solves nothing.

The idea is not to assume that everyone will be superrational or trustworthy at the beginning of the game. I believe it’s possible for the superrational players in a game to become the majority by expressing the superrational strategy in terms that will appeal to rationally self-interested players and demonstrating a superrational strategy working at some non-trivial scale.

Even so, that idea merely expresses the hope that the prisoners can be educated out of their mistrust - which still seems like saying, 'the dillemma doesn't exist, if we fix the prisoners'.

(for the sake of argument, it looks like we're both assuming a n>2 group of prisoners.)

Also, the point of the dillemma is that only one prisoner has to act selfishly. If a subset of the group does cooperate, it doesn't matter because the one left out will take advantage of them all...and that risk increases exponentially as the size of the group increases, and makes the decision to trust even a subset of the group irrational.

Post reply on HN