Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Zygi's avatar

This makes sense in the given setting, when civs have rational beliefs and belief updates. But in a bounded rationality setting it's less obvious. In particular, if value of information can be negative, a civ would actively prefer to not receive misleading information. One way to do that is through deterrence (with bombs), and then forming an alliance would make sense.

(Which setting is closer to real life is of course a different question.)

Expand full comment
Giulio Prisco's avatar

"my default is to allow any human, org, or AI to listen to any source they choose. Let them decide who is worth a listen, and what meta-sources to trust."

Same here! I don't want to be "protected" from words that they think might hurt me. I'll protect myself, thank you very much.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. "

Strange how this common sense truth is considered politically incorrect these days. Sure, at times words can hurt. But sticks and stones hurt much more. And saying that it's the same thing is an insult to those who had their bones broken by sticks and stones.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts