4 ms·

How do you know if your network is the truthful one and isn't participating in deception? And given that networks are increasingly non-physical, how do you guar

How do you know if your network is the truthful one and isn't participating in deception? And given that networks are increasingly non-physical, how do you guarantee it is the person in question? The only way reputation networks maintain durability is if they stay physically constrained and limited by physical contact. Any system built externally and allowed to represent facts and truth will be compromised due to computational superiority. It must not be a network hosted by a computer. It must run on culture and physical reality itself. Additionally agents of deception are regularly embedded in networks to encourage malicious behavior. Spies are pretty common. See: https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/6/252840-collusion-rings-threaten-the-integrity-of-computer-science-research/fulltext https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/6/252840-collusion-rin... I think the key bias we're contesting is that I'm arguing computational superiority allows creating networks that are indistinguishable from truthful ones because they have the resources to have the "longest version of history" to act as the authority. If the history is not there, it can be fabricated and embed enough "covert actors" to maintain a narrative. Then you also generate useful idiots who don't know they are being used to propagate misdirection or what have you. They become unable to detect any "obviously fake content" because it doesn't require fake content to conduct deception. Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention.

closedloop129 4y ago
>How do you know if your network is the truthful one You don't know. Evolution will decide if your seed group was good enough. >how do you guarantee it is the person in question? You can't. You have to role back if an identity is compromised >It must run on culture and physical reality itself. Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. > think the key bias ... the resources to have the "longest version of history" History is secondary if you verify all statements. History should only grant preferred treatment. >Then you also generate useful idiots That's outside of the trust network. You can help them by making education easily accessible. >Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention. That's when the game becomes interesting. You can also have truths that are not verifiable etc. It all depends on what the participatns want to know.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  Largely agree with your adds. However one point you mention I've had great contemplation over: > Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. When we live in a world that is increasingly using simulations for verification instead of reality itself, it seems as it becomes an ever increasing attack surface for controlling and manipulating what reality and truth actually is. The scary quote "Science Academics" are largely publishing statements based on mathematical models that are probalistic or theoretical with no physical extant items. When the burden of verification is solely on the individual, yet the individual is increasingly pushed in the direction of having to believe things as facts rather than experiencing them, then it sort of compromises that integrity, no? It seems the only way to have certainty is to be a witness and have experience over a set of events, that is the only thing that can be understood to be true (and only to you), and that is what contributes to certainty. All else is belief and unknown risk to deception. tl;dr science is heading towards imaginary non-extant things that happen to predict physical things but they can only be verified non-physically and since certainty require physical experience then the security of the system is at risk of being corrupted. tl;dr;dr what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? Also interesting: > That's when the game becomes interesting. You can also have truths that are not verifiable etc. It all depends on what the participatns want to know. Can you expand on this? You're saying something incredibly poignant and I'd like to hear more.
  - closedloop129 4y ago
    >what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts. The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math. The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the simulation itself. It's the end of 'scientific cooperation'. Why verify a simulation when you can make your own? >>It all depends on what the participants want to know. >Can you expand on this? I wouldn't call it poignant, but here you are: As you wrote "Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention." - there is a process that makes choices. Truth is a tool to reach the goals of that process. We don't care about the scientific method in itself. Most people don't need truths to reach their goals because there is kind of a market of facts. Some facts are just known, without scientific backing, and people can just choose to use them. When there is deception there is also cooperation. The misdirecting information is only there because somebody else wants to achieve something. Maybe it's easier to cooperate with them about their goals than handling the misinformation?

closedloop129 4y ago

>How do you know if your network is the truthful one You don't know. Evolution will decide if your seed group was good enough. >how do you guarantee it is the person in question? You can't. You have to role back if an identity is compromised >It must run on culture and physical reality itself. Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. > think the key bias ... the resources to have the "longest version of history" History is secondary if you verify all statements. History should only grant preferred treatment. >Then you also generate useful idiots That's outside of the trust network. You can help them by making education easily accessible. >Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention. That's when the game becomes interesting. You can also have truths that are not verifiable etc. It all depends on what the participatns want to know.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Largely agree with your adds. However one point you mention I've had great contemplation over: > Yes. That's the difference between science and writing in general. Science is meant to be checked with reality. When we live in a world that is increasingly using simulations for verification instead of reality itself, it seems as it becomes an ever increasing attack surface for controlling and manipulating what reality and truth actually is. The scary quote "Science Academics" are largely publishing statements based on mathematical models that are probalistic or theoretical with no physical extant items. When the burden of verification is solely on the individual, yet the individual is increasingly pushed in the direction of having to believe things as facts rather than experiencing them, then it sort of compromises that integrity, no? It seems the only way to have certainty is to be a witness and have experience over a set of events, that is the only thing that can be understood to be true (and only to you), and that is what contributes to certainty. All else is belief and unknown risk to deception. tl;dr science is heading towards imaginary non-extant things that happen to predict physical things but they can only be verified non-physically and since certainty require physical experience then the security of the system is at risk of being corrupted. tl;dr;dr what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? Also interesting: > That's when the game becomes interesting. You can also have truths that are not verifiable etc. It all depends on what the participatns want to know. Can you expand on this? You're saying something incredibly poignant and I'd like to hear more.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  >what to do about simulations and models posing for reality? It is or will become indistinguishable from thinking. We can ask the same question about our thoughts. The science trick is that it requires models that can be falsified in reality. If you make predictions about simulations, then you don't make science but math. The problem about simulations is that they make verification equally or more expensive than the simulation itself. It's the end of 'scientific cooperation'. Why verify a simulation when you can make your own? >>It all depends on what the participants want to know. >Can you expand on this? I wouldn't call it poignant, but here you are: As you wrote "Very often, it is real information indeed that is most able to misdirect attention." - there is a process that makes choices. Truth is a tool to reach the goals of that process. We don't care about the scientific method in itself. Most people don't need truths to reach their goals because there is kind of a market of facts. Some facts are just known, without scientific backing, and people can just choose to use them. When there is deception there is also cooperation. The misdirecting information is only there because somebody else wants to achieve something. Maybe it's easier to cooperate with them about their goals than handling the misinformation?