
Technology’s dark forest - kaboro
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/technologys-dark-forest/
======
zwkrt
Tech crunch is up its own behind on this one. The first potential reason is
"resentment" people have toward the rich and glamorous San Jose lifestyle or
because technology is "like magic" to the simple lay-folk. People are
distrustful of things that have a track record of losing their trust, and tech
is very high on this list.

The other day I was returning some umbrellas to a Target. I had bought them
online and picked them up at a different store. When trying to return them the
nice old woman at the customer service counter had issues receiving the
inventory because Target's system was not accepting the return of inventory
whith such circuitous provenance. We were both intelligent humans, I had a
valid receipt, and in another era she could have just taken the umbrellas and
the issue would have been resolved. But today we have software which contains
all the rules, and often these rules extend out into the world and begin to
govern our lives.

My example is silly, but think about how often tech restricts you versus how
often is frees you. People reading this on HN might feel the answer is about
even, but most people not in tech would probably have a very different answer.

~~~
fnord123
>I had a valid receipt, and in another era she could have just taken the
umbrellas and the issue would have been resolved.

I think you're looking back with rose tinted glasses. Making returns in
previous eras was very difficult. It was very much caveat emptor or make an
enormous fuss.

~~~
jasode
_> I think you're looking back with rose tinted glasses. Making returns in
previous eras was very difficult._

I agree. I remember 20 years ago when returns were much more of a hassle.

For example, at Home Depot in the 1990s, to return something, you had to _fill
out a written form with a pen_. The cumbersome pen & paper dance was repeated
by the cashier as she had to analyze the receipt and manually circle which
items were being returned. Today, their POS system just scans the UPC bar
codes and immediately puts the refund amount back on the credit card.
Literally 30 seconds instead of 5 minutes.

Also, if I lost my receipt, the cashier justs ask for the card number I used.
They can then find the transaction in their database and issue a refund back
to the card. Container Store can also do this so I assume many retailers can
do it. This convenience is all made possible by modern POS systems.
Previously, the stores had a strict _" no return without a receipt"_ policy.

Overall, returns are easier today, not harder.

~~~
newnewpdro
You're just not going back far enough. It used to be _very_ _easy_ to return
things, at least out in the midwest where I grew up.

I had budding criminal friends in high school who were no doubt partially
responsible for why it became so difficult, because they were exploiting the
easy returns for personal gain.

They would buy 56K USRobotics modems from Best Buy and return the boxes
containing used 14K modems. Someone had found a large quantity of disused USR
14K modems, I think it was from an office building dumpster. Weekends were
spent doing this across dozens of stores at scale, I never heard about any of
them getting caught.

Back then your average retail employee wouldn't know a modem from a sound
card. All they verified was that a circuit board computer thing was in the
box.

~~~
LaundroMat
With things becoming obsolete faster than ever before, I'm sure this scam
could still work. I know plenty of stores where they only glance in the box
when you return something, and if you bought it cash, you'll get cash back (no
traceability).

------
GavinMcG
The author stated the meaning of "dark forest":

> civilizations fear one another so much that they don’t dare to reveal
> themselves lest they immediately be considered a potential threat and
> destroyed

and then completely misuses the term, instead talking about how _consumers_ of
technology are suspicious of _creators_ of technology.

~~~
forkLding
This is probably a better explanation by the guys at Bigthink:

[https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-
theory...](https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory-a-
terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-havent-heard-from-aliens-yet)

~~~
southerndrift
>The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking
through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the
path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The
hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy
hunters like him. If he finds another life—another hunter, angel, or a demon,
a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod—there’s only one
thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them.

Very interesting. What this theory doesn't take into account are the non-
hunters. A single farmer is at risk in a world full of hunters - see Robinson
Crusoe. However, a village full of farmers who can store heavy weapons in
their houses has almost nothing to fear from a small group of hunters.

If each but one civilization dies in a hunter universe, making noises is worth
the risk to meet others who are willing to cooperate.

~~~
Kalium
> What this theory doesn't take into account are the non-hunters. A single
> farmer is at risk in a world full of hunters - see Robinson Crusoe. However,
> a village full of farmers who can store heavy weapons in their houses has
> almost nothing to fear from a small group of hunters.

Is it perhaps possible that it might actually account for exactly these
points? A single farmer is like a hunter, except unarmed and not stealthy.
They cannot be expected to live long as they will be treated only as another
hunter.

You're absolutely right about the hypothetical power of an organized village!
Yet, in this scenario such a thing never comes about and _can_ never come
about. A village requires collaboration and trust, things the hunters do not
posses.

As a result, there are no farmers to speak of. They don't last long enough to
matter. The only survivors are the hunters.

Are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma? This is one where trust is
impossible, betrayal is cheap, and cooperation risks your entire civilization
on someone else's cheap betrayal.

~~~
max76
> You're absolutely right about the hypothetical power of an organized
> village! Yet, in this scenario such a thing never comes about and can never
> come about. A village requires collaboration and trust, things the hunters
> do not posses.

The books highlight that trust cannot be established. All civilizations are
very alien to each other, the huge differences and the lack of a common
culture makes establishing trust almost impossible. Imagine sending the first
message “I am a farmer, and would like to collaberate with other farmers.” How
would you determine if the responder was a farmer, or a hunter pretending to
be a farmer?

There are other aspects of the fictional world that makes a farmer
collaboration impossible, but I wouldn’t want to spoil it.

~~~
southerndrift
>How would you determine if the responder was a farmer, or a hunter pretending
to be a farmer?

Farmers already made that choice by sending the message. Whoever wants to
attack will be prepared to the point of full domination.

That said, why should space faring civilizations be incapable of cooperation?
Without leaving the solar system, we are already in a state of post-modernism
and multiculturalism. A civilization that can travel between solar systems can
be even more advanced in respecting other cultures.

If there is a risk then it is us, not pouring more resources into research so
that we have nothing to offer once somebody else comes along.

~~~
Kalium
> Farmers already made that choice by sending the message. Whoever wants to
> attack will be prepared to the point of full domination.

Part of the setup for this _particular_ game is that there is no being
prepared to the point of "full domination". There is only first strike, and
whoever attacks first wins. This is a huge part of why every player is
incredibly careful - there is no surviving, enduring, or being prepared for an
attack.

Bear in mind that this discussion is not people advocating national or global
policy around guns versus butter. This is people wrapping their heads around a
particular model explored in some science fiction works. The model you prefer
and advocate can be found in a different set of science fiction works.

Not every model used in every work of literature will produce outcomes
preferred by every person. Not every game has an outcome or stable state that
everyone likes under the rules of the game. That's fine. That is, after all,
why we have different models and explore their consequences.

Though I understand if some reject this and seek for a way for every model to
produce their preferred outcome. It's a very human response.

~~~
max76
> There is only first strike, and whoever attacks first wins. This is a huge
> part of why every player is incredibly careful - there is no surviving,
> enduring, or being prepared for an attack.

There are three key attributes to a dark forest strike. They are increadibly
cheap for the attacker, they are abosultely devastating to the victim, and
they do not give away the attacker’s position.

Given these attributes a few hunters could set up conditions where
civilizations that decide to communicate would be quickly eliminated. Being
friendly would be a trait conditions would select against.

It’s an interesting game, and a truly horrifying answer to Femi’s paradox.

------
crsmithdev
So, the author read a book and then awkwardly tried to graft its theme onto
the narrative his employer is pushing. Went about as well as you'd expect.

------
CapmCrackaWaka
I find the authors assertion lacking. The only reason the Facebook 10 year
meme was immediately distrusted is because Facebook's image has already been
shot.

Think about how many other developing technologies people just can't wait for,
like self driving cars and renewable energy. It's not that people distrust
technology, but like anything else it depends on who's wielding it and what
they could do with it.

------
mrosett
The analogy in the title is very strained to start with, and by the time he
throws in a Zork reference the metaphor totally collapses.

Setting aside the rhetorical style, I think the main argument is pretty weak.
People claiming Facebook has hidden motives aren't skeptical of technology;
they're skeptical of Facebook. People raise issues about AI reinforcing bias,
but in the cases I've seen those are mostly people who work in tech.

Basically, I don't think the author establishes that people actually fear
technology, and he doesn't really consider when technological skepticism is
appropriate.

------
ScottAS
“Remember when we looked forward to every advance?”

No. Humans have always been afraid of change and skeptical of technology.
Books and the printing press were considered destructive inventions that would
prevent people from thinking for themselves. There were also extremely
negative perceptions of television and the internet.

~~~
agumonkey
I think that's unfair regarding the last decades. Post war people were pretty
enthusiastic about tech. There are always people resisting. As a kid I wasn't
obviously. But even adults were running after kitchen appliances, electronics
and computers. It was a given.

------
skybrian
I think what's happened is that one-bit reasoning (everything is either
wonderful or terrible) has become too common? Maybe because most comments are
short, and some witty, shallow takes are viral?

------
cooperadymas
I agree that we are more pessimistic about technology, but that's a
reductionist view of the Dark Forest theory. And it doesn't even hold up with
their example. Millions of people did the 10 year challenge, but a Wired
article suggested it's a ruse, therefore we don't trust new technology, except
when millions of people did (never mind that this isn't even an example of
"technology").

------
nostrademons
"The Internet would erase national boundaries, replace gatekeepers with a
universal opportunity for free expression, and bring us all closer together."

Sounds like it succeeded in that, we just don't like the results.

~~~
beaconstudios
cue today, with mass censorship on the rise.

------
davidw
I'm tired of pessimism. I want more optimistic things to read and watch.

------
woah
I can answer all of the article's questions with one word: Clickbait.

------
peterwwillis
Humorous to think that in the future they'll know what forests were. Or maybe
it'll remain a vestigial word for "field of CO2 scrubbers"

~~~
pjscott
The amount of forested land in the US has been pretty stable for the past
century or so. (Not sure about other countries.)

[https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2000/Forest...](https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2000/ForestFactsMetric.pdf)

------
freethemullet
I suppose dark forest is a reference to a "forest dark" from Dante's Inferno?

~~~
pnongrata
As someone else already pointed out:

[https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-
theory...](https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory-a-
terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-havent-heard-from-aliens-yet)

------
simion314
Technology is not the problem, people are the problem, even in the mentioned
books people start the big event, people fail many time on solving it(by
arrogance, naivety ...)

Sure we should not be paranoid but why should be naive, why risk more then you
have to. We are resources for capitalist entities to exploit us.

------
scarejunba
Okay, so let's be clear. People love technology. They don't "distrust it",
"hate it", or any such nonsense.

Everyone loves this shit. It's gold. There's just a vocal minority.

