Ask HN: Is the internet a zero-sum game? is karma -ve and +ve globally zero?
i'm thinking for all these folks out there who feel +ve about their online interactions, how many out there end the day feeling -ve? is there any reason to believe it is globally a zero-sum game or is the internet actually creating (or depreciating) social value in aggregate?
14 comments
In most ways, the total all human social karma is a zero-sum game. But human emotions are not.
The internet, by enabling and often rewarding a lot of nasty behavior - while "stealing" so much attention from the real world - is pretty plausibly a big net negative for human society. Especially on the emotions side.
(But since the set of people who are active on HN is fairly strongly biased toward the net "winners", plus those who want or hope to be winners, I don't expect these assertions to go over well here:)
The internet, by enabling and often rewarding a lot of nasty behavior - while "stealing" so much attention from the real world - is pretty plausibly a big net negative for human society. Especially on the emotions side.
(But since the set of people who are active on HN is fairly strongly biased toward the net "winners", plus those who want or hope to be winners, I don't expect these assertions to go over well here:)
I think it's still accurate if someone looks outside their own bubble.
Communication, opportunity, and opening a world of experiences are definite positives and I'd say a necessary growth path; but the current structure and experiences includes an infinite amount of negative.
It would've been nice if we could've avoided the 'systemic filth' (not talking sexual, more just the ever growing mass of problems associated with digital existence) or shown more care/thought when it comes to the effects on people beyond the 'hey look a shiny new idea'(and maybe not just leaning into creations even harder because there's a audience for it), but it kinda comes with the territory with human growth.
TLDR: A mildly nihilistic take overall, oops.
Communication, opportunity, and opening a world of experiences are definite positives and I'd say a necessary growth path; but the current structure and experiences includes an infinite amount of negative.
It would've been nice if we could've avoided the 'systemic filth' (not talking sexual, more just the ever growing mass of problems associated with digital existence) or shown more care/thought when it comes to the effects on people beyond the 'hey look a shiny new idea'(and maybe not just leaning into creations even harder because there's a audience for it), but it kinda comes with the territory with human growth.
TLDR: A mildly nihilistic take overall, oops.
Zero sum game is a mathematical abstraction.
It is dangerous and ignorant to assume anything in real world is like that.
There may be only _some_ niches and _some_ specific problems, systems that are well described by this model.
But that’s it.
Unfortunately ideas like that are very sticky because they look beautiful and simple and average joe (like average journalist out there) equals beauty or simplicity with truth, and truth with real world.
It is dangerous and ignorant to assume anything in real world is like that.
There may be only _some_ niches and _some_ specific problems, systems that are well described by this model.
But that’s it.
Unfortunately ideas like that are very sticky because they look beautiful and simple and average joe (like average journalist out there) equals beauty or simplicity with truth, and truth with real world.
> Zero sum game is a mathematical abstraction. It is dangerous and ignorant to assume anything in real world is like that.
Are we assuming or asking a question? o_O
it's also probably "dangerous and ignorant" (haha get over yourself hahaha!) to assume the poster is assuming the worst possible interpretation you can come up with so you can feel the smartest you can, while the need to do that is itself revealing and suggesting of some compensation motivation! hahaha! :)
agree on the trap of elegant models providing a seductive over-simplification of the real world, but that doesn't mean elegant models are false: maxwell, supply/demand, maxflow, phi, et al.
however poorly stated, your point about the deceptive seductiveness of elegant oversimplifications is well taken. one must retain nuance, a quality your comment is perhaps abundantly lacking in, despite pointing out! :) hahaha
but well taken! :)
Are we assuming or asking a question? o_O
it's also probably "dangerous and ignorant" (haha get over yourself hahaha!) to assume the poster is assuming the worst possible interpretation you can come up with so you can feel the smartest you can, while the need to do that is itself revealing and suggesting of some compensation motivation! hahaha! :)
agree on the trap of elegant models providing a seductive over-simplification of the real world, but that doesn't mean elegant models are false: maxwell, supply/demand, maxflow, phi, et al.
however poorly stated, your point about the deceptive seductiveness of elegant oversimplifications is well taken. one must retain nuance, a quality your comment is perhaps abundantly lacking in, despite pointing out! :) hahaha
but well taken! :)
Quality of my comment is awesome despite being slightly off of original question, chatgpt.
And you are not to judge it anyway.
Because it addresses the most probable root cause of such a silly question (wtf the sum game has with karma to begin with?) rather than giving direct answer to a meaningless question.
In other words my comment is an elaborate and polite version of “this silly question can’t be answered for real”
And you are not to judge it anyway.
Because it addresses the most probable root cause of such a silly question (wtf the sum game has with karma to begin with?) rather than giving direct answer to a meaningless question.
In other words my comment is an elaborate and polite version of “this silly question can’t be answered for real”
keepamovin(1)
[deleted]