The LLMonely bookclub - Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu
(heavy spoilers for the book follow)
Whenever I finish a book, I usually am left with a lot of thoughts. I really want to talk to someone about them, but chances are my friends haven’t read the same book. Even if they have, it’s probable that they finished the book a long time ago, and the ideas aren’t so fresh in their minds. Lately, I’ve been chatting with LLMs about my ideas after finishing books. For me the conversational / prompting nature of the interaction facilitates getting my thoughts down on paper, and the back-and-forth makes for an engaging way to explore my ideas.
I think some of these explorations end up being quite interesting, so I am going to experiment with posting some of them to the blog.
This post is about Cixin Liu’s Three Body Problem. Overall I found it to be a really engaging read, due to the imaginative way in which the author applies the ideas of physics to propose some really mind-bending technologies and scenes.
At the same time I can’t really say I enjoyed the book. The beautiful and mind-bending technologies are paired with a fairly unimaginative and reductionist view of intelligent life, society and civilization. I felt that there was a strong traditionalist and gender-normative subtext - women are gentle, nurturing, conflicted, while men are stoic, violent, bestial and resolute. There is a literal manic-pixy-dream-girl, and Luo Ji is the grand-daddy of all daddies. Finishing this book left me feeling really hungry for a palette-cleanser in the Charlie Jane Anders “No Gods, No Daddies, No Lone Geniuses” vein (
link).
I think Cixin Liu presents a pretty bleak view of life in the universe. In essence, he postulates a few axioms:
survival is the first need of civilization
civilizations undergo exponential advancement in technology and expansion
the total amount of resources in the universe is finite
Due to this, when any two civilizations interact, they are immediately placed into a zero-sum game with extinction on the line. At any moment either civilization could undergo an exponential leap in technology that would leave the other civilization in the dust. Add to this the communication barrier between civilizations, and the difficulty in establishing trust (with Cixin Liu dubs infinite suspicion chains), and you’re left with the “Dark Forest” universe, where all civilizations are concealing themselves and preemptively destroying any star system showing even the slightest signs of intelligence.
It’s an unsettling view of the world, and something I wanted to think about out loud. My transcript follows. I trimmed Claude’s output in many places since it was a bit repetitive. I also edited it to flow to make it feel more conversational and less LLM-ey.
What are some common criticisms of the book the three body problem? Specifically I want to read about the science presented in the book and the idea of dark forest theory as an explanation for Fermi’s Paradox?
LLM
Let me address the main criticisms of The Three-Body Problem, particularly regarding its scientific elements and the Dark Forest theory.
Some critics argue that Liu Cixin takes significant liberties with physics, particularly in the sections dealing with quantum mechanics and the "sophons" (unfolding protons into two-dimensional surfaces). While the book presents these concepts dramatically, they stretch scientific credibility.
The depiction of the three-body orbital mechanics, while central to the plot, has been criticized for oversimplifying what would be an even more chaotic and unpredictable system in reality.
As for the Dark Forest theory and the Fermi Paradox:
The core premise - that civilizations remain silent because any contact leads to destruction - has been criticized as overly pessimistic and making several questionable assumptions:
The theory assumes perfect rationality from all civilizations, ignoring the possibility of cooperative or altruistic species
It presumes that technological advancement necessarily leads to the ability to destroy other civilizations across vast distances
Critics point out that it doesn't account for the possibility of mutually beneficial trade or knowledge exchange between civilizations
The theory assumes resources are inherently scarce across the entire universe, which may not be true given the vast scale of space
Furthermore, some sociological critics argue that the Dark Forest theory reflects specific Cold War-era thinking and Chinese cultural perspectives about civilizational conflict, rather than a universal truth about how intelligent life would interact.
However, defenders of the theory argue that even if the probability of hostile action is low, the stakes are so high (potential civilization extinction) that silence remains the optimal strategy - similar to game theory's "prisoner's dilemma" played out on a cosmic scale.
Would you like me to elaborate on any of these points or discuss other aspects of the criticism?
Me
I am curious about the game theoretic aspects of dark forest thinking
The game theoretic analysis of Dark Forest theory is fascinating. At its core, the scenario can be modeled as a high-stakes prisoner's dilemma with unique characteristics. The first and most critical aspect is the problem of incomplete information - civilizations can never truly know each other's intentions, technological capabilities, or moral frameworks. They cannot verify if detected signals are genuine or deceptive, and due to the vast distances of space, even basic information like location becomes uncertain due to time lag.
This leads to what game theorists call a "chain of suspicion" or higher-order beliefs. Even if one civilization is genuinely peaceful, they must worry that others might perceive them as hostile. This concern extends recursively - they must also worry that others might worry about being perceived as hostile, creating an infinite regress of suspicion that makes peaceful equilibrium nearly impossible to achieve.
The situation is further complicated by technological uncertainty. A civilization that appears less advanced today could make a breakthrough tomorrow, and there's no credible way to commit to remaining peaceful as technology advances. This dynamic creates immense pressure to strike preemptively while holding any temporary advantage.
The result is what game theorists call a "pure strategy Nash equilibrium" - silence and preemptive strikes become the dominant strategy, even though this leads to clearly suboptimal outcomes for all players. It's analogous to an arms race, but with perfect stealth as the "weapon" of choice.
However, this game theoretic model has several significant weaknesses. It assumes all players are perfectly rational utility maximizers, ignores the possibility of credible commitment mechanisms, treats civilization survival as binary rather than allowing for partial cooperation, and overlooks how vast space distances might make certain strategies impractical.
An intriguing counter-argument from game theory is the concept of "costly signaling" - where civilizations could prove peaceful intentions through actions that would be irrational for hostile civilizations to take. However, designing such signals that couldn't be faked remains an extremely challenging problem.
Me
I think it also rests on a few other premises, like the fact that as a civilization becomes more advanced it will naturally seek to expand, and that this expansion will necessarily compete with other civilizations.
LLM
Yes, that's an excellent observation! The Dark Forest theory does indeed make some crucial assumptions about the nature of civilizational expansion and competition. Let's explore these premises in detail.
First, there's what we might call the Expansion Imperative - the theory assumes that advanced civilizations will inevitably expand outward. This assumption stems from our own experience with population growth demanding more habitable space, increasing resource consumption as technology advances, and even our innate drive for exploration and species survival. However, this view overlooks several possibilities: advanced civilizations might achieve post-scarcity economics, experience population stabilization or even decline, focus on virtual or non-physical forms of expansion, or simply find contentment within their local domain.
Then there's the Competition Assumption - the idea that expansion inevitably leads to conflict. This rests on the notion that resources, even on a cosmic scale, are fundamentally finite, that habitable worlds are scarce, and that control of strategic locations must be zero-sum. But this assumption might not hold true if civilizations value different types of resources, if the universe proves vast enough to make competition unnecessary, or if advanced technologies emerge that transcend our current understanding of resource limitations.
Finally, there's the Timeframe Problem. The theory makes specific assumptions about civilizations existing concurrently rather than being separated by vast periods, developing at similar rates, and being able to meaningfully interact across vast distances. It assumes technological progress follows predictable patterns that we can understand and anticipate.
When we examine these premises closely, we can see that the Dark Forest theory is potentially anthropocentric - it projects human patterns of expansion, competition, and development onto all possible forms of intelligence. The theory seems heavily influenced by our own historical experiences with colonialism, resource competition, and technological development, rather than considering the full range of possibilities for how advanced civilizations might develop and interact.
Me
I think a lot about the fact that the more intelligent people are, the more absurd expansionism and colonialism seem. I have a hard time believing that a highly technological society with unprecedented access to resources and information would be a militaristic state
LLM
You make a great point about the flaws in Dark Forest theory. I think as civilizations become more advanced and intelligent, they'd actually become less interested in expansion, not more.
Think about how information-rich societies tend to care more about knowledge and culture than grabbing territory. We already see this today - the most educated countries focus on diplomatic influence rather than military conquest. And when you have advanced tech for energy and resources, plus virtual spaces for growth, why would you even need to expand physically?
Intelligence also tends to bring greater empathy, better long-term thinking, and more sophisticated ethics. Advanced civilizations would probably look back at their history of conflict and see it as primitive and wasteful. They'd develop better ways to cooperate and resolve differences.
It's telling that today's most developed nations have the least interest in military conquest. This suggests an alternative to Dark Forest theory - maybe advanced civilizations naturally become more focused on internal growth and cultural exchange. When they discover other civilizations, their first instinct might be curiosity and a desire to learn, not fear and aggression.
I also think about the absurdist view. As our civilization becomes more scientifically literate, our notions of meaning are getting challenged. Society is becoming more secular, less moralistic. The notions of manifest destiny and national superiority that I feel like were the underpinning of colonialism and war are undermined.
The absurdist philosophical perspective presents a compelling counterargument to the Dark Forest theory. As civilizations advance scientifically, they tend to become less territorially aggressive and paranoid, rather than more so. This transformation appears to be a natural consequence of increased scientific understanding.
When a civilization fully comprehends its position in the cosmos - recognizing both its fundamental insignificance in scale and the remarkable improbability of conscious existence - it becomes difficult to maintain the fear-based, tribalistic mentalities that drive conflict. Traditional narratives of manifest destiny and national supremacy lose their persuasive power when viewed against the backdrop of cosmic scale.
This evolution in perspective appears to be an inherent part of civilizational advancement. Greater understanding of the universe leads to a deeper appreciation for the rarity and preciousness of intelligent life, shifting focus from conquest to exploration and connection. The shared experience of consciousness in an vast, seemingly indifferent universe creates a natural basis for cooperation rather than conflict.
Therefore, it seems more probable that advanced civilizations would approach first contact with curiosity and openness rather than the fearful hiding behavior predicted by Dark Forest theory. The fundamental absurdity of existence might serve as a universal common ground, facilitating peaceful scientific and cultural exchange between civilizations.
I guess the counter to this is evolutionary. The more expansionist civilizations will be more prolific by their very nature, and overall dominate the cosmos. Unless you can show that it is impossible to become technologically advanced while maintaining an expansionist civilization
The evolutionary argument for expansionism, while compelling at first glance, faces several significant challenges. Expansionist civilizations may actually be inherently self-limiting - they tend to exhaust resources prematurely, suffer from internal conflicts, and often prioritize military technology at the expense of broader scientific advancement. This narrow focus could prevent them from achieving true technological maturity.
Moreover, certain advanced scientific concepts seem to require philosophical frameworks that are fundamentally incompatible with expansionist thinking. For instance, understanding quantum mechanics demands comfort with uncertainty and interconnection, while the scientific method itself requires intellectual humility and openness to new ideas. The development of advanced AI may necessitate deep insights into consciousness and identity that challenge tribal or expansionist mindsets.
Advanced technology appears to require specific social conditions: stable long-term cooperation, free exchange of ideas, investment in basic research, and global coordination. These prerequisites seem fundamentally at odds with aggressive expansionism. Rather than viewing success through the lens of territorial expansion, advanced civilizations might measure progress through depth of understanding, consciousness development, or entirely novel metrics we cannot yet conceive.
This perspective aligns with evolutionary fitness landscapes, where multiple successful strategies can coexist. Just as nature doesn't favor only the largest or most aggressive species, cosmic development might support various paths to advancement. The "expand or die" assumption may simply reflect our current competitive phase rather than a universal truth.
Me
I think in our own civilization we can see that both exist, and unfortunately the expansionist parts of society can take advantage of the technologies developed during the cooperative phases. And actually a lot of the time rapid advancement in many technologies happened through times of conflict? Is that an accurate read on our history? I'm thinking of the atom bomb, the space race, and the creation of the Internet within the military.
Your observation highlights a crucial pattern in technological development that adds complexity to our discussion. Throughout history, we've seen an intricate dance between peaceful scientific advancement and military applications. The process typically begins with fundamental research in the scientific community, but it's the military's massive resource allocation that often drives rapid practical development.
This pattern is evident across multiple domains. In nuclear technology, peaceful physics research laid the groundwork, but the Manhattan Project's military funding transformed theoretical understanding into practical applications. Similarly, space technology evolved from theoretical work by pioneers like Tsiolkovsky and Goddard into a Cold War-driven race that produced both ICBMs and space exploration capabilities. The development of computing followed a parallel path, with academic research forming the foundation before DARPA's military funding created both military command systems and the civilian internet. Even aviation, which began with peaceful civilian development, saw its most rapid advancement during periods of military competition.
This historical pattern suggests a darker interpretation of how advanced civilizations might develop: they may maintain a dual nature, with cooperative scientific communities working alongside powerful military capabilities that can quickly weaponize peaceful advances. This challenges our earlier assumptions about the Dark Forest theory - perhaps a civilization doesn't need to be entirely expansionist, but rather just maintain a strong military component capable of rapid mobilization.
This creates a troubling paradox: scientific advancement requires openness and cooperation, yet this very openness creates vulnerabilities that necessitate military preparedness, which in turn can exploit peaceful advances for military purposes. The question remains: is this pattern universal across all technological civilizations, or might more advanced societies find ways to break free from this cycle?
I'm thinking about a few things.
One is resource scarcity. If energy becomes ubiquitous and available in a distributed way ( through solar and batteries) that may change the geopolitical climate. Another is information and connectivity. It's true that there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet, but also it is a lot easier to obtain at least basic knowledge about the world, which was not so easy in recent history. I think there's also the rise of globalization and interconnected trade.
I guess one has to ask - what were the reasons why humans organized themselves into modern nation states? Are those reasons likely to change due to technological advances? I feel like some things might be:
to provide a military to protect resources from other nation states. This may become less important for energy, but may remain important for desirable land or rare minerals
provide certain systems for governance.
to provide a monopoly on violence in the form of the police. This is definitely possible to do at smaller scales than a nation state, but also maybe there are potential benefits of scale?
a tool for coordination. Tax collection allows governments to coordinate resources on behalf of the population. I think we're seeing nation states fail at this currently, as governments seem to be increasingly losing alignment with their citizens. Especially in larger nation states
Technological changes are fundamentally reshaping the traditional rationale for nation-state organization. The rise of distributed energy production through solar and batteries is weakening centralized control over resources, though dependencies on rare materials and arable land persist. This transition is not without conflict, as existing power structures resist the erosion of their traditional authority.
The information age has transformed how societies function. While improved access to information and technical knowledge has made traditional propaganda less effective and increased cross-cultural understanding, we're simultaneously witnessing the emergence of more sophisticated forms of social control through technology.
Nation-states are adapting their core functions in response to these changes. Military focus is shifting from territorial control to cyber warfare, while governance systems are becoming both more distributed and more centralized through technology. The state's monopoly on violence is being challenged by new forms of organization enabled by cryptocurrencies and digital communities, even as surveillance capabilities increase. Meanwhile, traditional governmental structures struggle with global challenges like climate change and pandemics, even as technology enables new forms of coordination and direct democratic participation.
These shifts suggest we may be witnessing the early stages of a fundamental societal reorganization. The nation-state, optimized for the industrial age, appears increasingly misaligned with emerging technological realities. We're seeing the rise of city-states, corporate entities wielding nation-state-like power, and digital communities that transcend physical boundaries. This evolution points toward more fluid governance structures, hybrid physical-digital communities, and variable scales of organization for different functions.
For advanced civilizations, this trajectory suggests a move away from traditional expansionist competition toward more complex, overlapping forms of social organization.
Is there consensus on what drove the creation of modern nation states?
When examining the origins of modern nation-states, we must approach the topic with careful nuance, as historians and political scientists continue to debate various theoretical frameworks that explain their emergence. The story is complex and multifaceted, with several compelling explanations that interweave and complement each other.
Charles Tilly's influential theory of state formation, encapsulated in his famous quote "War made the state, and the state made war," emphasizes the crucial role of military competition. As warfare evolved and became more technologically sophisticated, particularly with the advent of gunpowder, states needed to develop more efficient systems of taxation and administration to maintain standing armies. This military imperative drove the creation of more organized, centralized state structures.
Parallel to military developments, economic forces played a pivotal role. The rise of capitalism demanded standardized markets and currencies, while the Industrial Revolution necessitated unprecedented levels of coordination. The expansion of railway networks, for instance, required large-scale administrative oversight that only a centralized state could provide. Additionally, the growing complexity of commerce called for consistent legal frameworks to protect property rights and regulate trade.
Cultural and linguistic factors were equally significant in shaping modern nation-states. The emergence of print capitalism facilitated the standardization of languages, while mass education systems helped forge national identities. Benedict Anderson's concept of "imagined communities" provides a compelling framework for understanding how shared cultural narratives and mass media helped create a sense of national unity among populations that might never directly interact.
Technological and administrative advancements further enabled the consolidation of state power. Improved record-keeping capabilities, enhanced communications, and the development of statistical knowledge allowed states to manage populations more effectively. The standardization of weights, measures, and currencies created unified economic spaces that strengthened state authority.
However, this historical narrative remains subject to significant scholarly debate. Questions persist about whether these factors were primary causes or secondary effects of nation-state formation, how regional variations influenced different paths to statehood, and the role of contingent historical events in shaping outcomes. It's crucial to note that the modern nation-state, emerging primarily after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, was not an inevitable development. Other forms of political organization existed and might have persisted under different circumstances. This historical contingency suggests that as conditions continue to evolve through technological, economic, and cultural changes, we may witness the emergence of new forms of political organization.
I'm a student of ecological dynamics and I like to think of these things in terms of complex systems, self organization, attractors and constraints.
Maybe we can talk about the US for a bit. Specifically, every election there is talk of this or that state seceding from the union. If a state actually got significant popular support for such an act, is that really likely? What are the forces that keep the country intact? Let's maybe take Texas and California as examples?
Viewing the US as a complex system with various attractors and constraints reveals how states maintain a stable configuration. Economic integration creates strong binding forces through deeply intertwined supply chains, a shared currency, interstate commerce dependencies, and integrated labor markets. There's free movement of goods and people, supported by a large common market.
Infrastructure also plays a critical role, with power grids, an interstate highway system, water rights, communications networks, shared air traffic control, and maritime shipping keeping the system cohesive. Militarily, nuclear deterrence, defense infrastructure, intelligence networks, and Coast Guard operations offer security, while administrative integration is seen in systems like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, federal student loans, and banking regulations.
When comparing state constraints, Texas hosts major military installations, oil and gas infrastructure, NASA facilities, and essential ports, all dependent on federal oversight. California's constraints include water rights from the Colorado River, federal fire management, military presence, tech reliance on federal contracts, national commerce port systems, and federal research funding.
These feedback loops illustrate how difficult separation could be, like separating intertwined roots, theoretically possible but practically damaging. Would you like to delve deeper into these systemic relationships or explore conditions that might enable state separation?
So a complete break like a secession is not very likely. I guess we could think about this as a more gradual transition from centralized federal power to distributed state power. What have the trends been like over the past couple of decades? Probably the relative taxation of state vs federal is an interesting trend. Or maybe whether state or federal bodies hold power over certain things?
You're right; examining the gradual shifts in federal-state power is crucial. States have increasingly asserted control in areas like environmental policy, with states like California setting vehicle emissions standards or developing climate initiatives. Social policies diverge as well—consider marijuana legalization, minimum wage laws, and abortion law changes. Economic policies, such as state-level banking regulations or cryptocurrency laws, further showcase this shift.
Conversely, the federal level has consolidated power in national security, post-9/11 expansions in surveillance, immigration, and cybersecurity, as well as economic policies driven by the Federal Reserve, banking regulation, and interstate commerce.
There's tension in states asserting power over tech, while tech remains inherently interstate, or in environmental issues that require broad coordination. Fiscal trends show federal dominance in tax revenue and unfunded mandates, creating budget pressures for states.
States function as policy labs, forming regional coalitions, with federal power concentrated in specific domains. Technology and climate change are forcing broader coordination. Do these observations align with what you've witnessed?
Yeah I think I agree. I guess here too there are many forces at play. State legislatures are more agile and can move quickly to stake out ground in emerging domains. Federal processes move slower but do seem to have an advantage. In particular, I think a lot about coordination. The states are more powerful than the nation, but they have a harder time cooperating than the federal unit, especially places where lots of power is consolidated. So the federal government can exert more control over those areas where it has already consolidated power, and maybe even use that to consolidate more. I think the same thing happens at every level actually. You can see it happening in the corporate world too
That's an insightful view on how coordination and power dynamics operate at different scales. Federally, although slower, there's a strong advantage in coordination, especially once power is established—it’s hard to unseat. States are nimble, acting quickly on emerging issues like crypto regulation but often face coordination challenges, leading to "patchwork" rules.
Tech giants mirror this: when one dominates, they can expand power easily, creating self-reinforcing advantages. However, cities and metropolitan areas, despite being innovation hotbeds, struggle with regional coordination, for instance, in transit systems.
Common patterns emerge, like the first mover advantage, coordination costs, and power accumulation. While power naturally consolidates at levels best equipped for coordination, technology might be changing these dynamics, enabling coordination without central control.
I've been thinking about the power of technology to enable different forms of coordination, or to enable groups of people to coordinate more effectively. I think blockchains and prediction markets are two examples of this. Though they definitely give me some "ick" factor. They seem to lack humanity. The cold, mechanical determinism of these sorts of modes of cooperation seems to cause some unintended effects to emerge, and I'm not sure if this is actually going to be a net positive for our civilization. For example, blockchains can allow groups of actors to agree on a ledger without trust. That seems like a powerful tool. However, so far it seems to largely be used for people to hide their wealth from governments. I see this sort of tax evasion as people shirking their social contract. I don't know if I would like to live in a society where there were no taxes.
Your critique highlights the stark reality of algorithmic coordination mechanisms. While these systems efficiently solve technical coordination problems, they also risk eroding social fabrics. Blockchains and prediction markets, with their trustless coordination, remove intermediaries but also sidestep the soft human factors and social commitments to the public good. They promise financial inclusion and democratic governance, yet reality often presents tax evasion, speculation, and a reduction in social accountability.
The mechanistic nature of these technologies emerges from their libertarian ideals, championing reduced state power but sometimes inadvertently undermining broader social cohesion. While such systems are efficient, they might lead to a spiritually impoverished society. We might need hybrid systems—blending technological coordination with human judgment, preserving social accountability, and supporting trust without replacing it.
What are your thoughts on possibilities for such hybrid systems, or do algorithmic and social coordination inherently conflict?
I think wikipedia is an example of this being done well.
Yes! Wikipedia effectively demonstrates how technology can enhance coordination while valuing human input. Its infrastructure supports mass collaboration, yet human editors infuse judgment, guiding decisions with community-agreed values and evolving norms. Transparency in edits, discussions, and decision-making fosters trust, alongside a blend of automated tools and human moderation.
Contrasting Wikipedia's trust-through-transparency with blockchain's trust-through-cryptography highlights how mission-driven, community-centered governance can maintain human judgment, whereas algorithmically driven governance often minimizes it. Wikipedia's success suggests that technologies should augment human judgment, preserve community values, and sustain human-scale interactions while serving clearly defined social purposes. Are there other examples you find compelling?
Can you think of any others?
Certainly. Open-source software communities resemble this model, where platforms like GitHub facilitate coordination, yet human oversight is crucial in code reviews and maintaining social norms. In citizen science projects like Galaxy Zoo, digital tools harness human pattern recognition while fostering community goals and contributing to public knowledge.
Buy Nothing groups use technology to connect people without severing community bonds, fostering trust through repeated interactions. Mutual aid networks, facilitated by digital tools like WhatsApp, remain deeply rooted in human execution and focus, while community gardens blend organizational tools with face-to-face engagement, combining structure with organic growth.
These efforts reflect key themes: technology enables but doesn’t dominate, fostering social purposes and blending online with offline interactions. The focus remains on public good, recognizing individual contributions, and maintaining human connections. Any examples resonate with your experience?
So I'm actually a software engineer, and I've thought about these things for a long time. Here's one example that I've seen in the wild - employee of the month or similar recognition programs. I've heard of several cases where a school had a teacher of the year who then used their visibility and mandate to advocate for changes with the administration.
Recognition programs like "Employee of the Month" offer a window into how formal systems can empower bottom-up change, even within hierarchical structures. In schools, a "Teacher of the Year" can leverage this visibility and legitimacy to champion change, turning social capital into influence. Acknowledgment from peers bridges gaps, granting a platform to voice concerns that administration might find harder to dismiss.
In the software world, similar mechanisms exist with Distinguished Engineers or Developer Advocates who are recognized based on peer acknowledgment and competence. These roles offer time-limited mandates and preserve existing hierarchies while enabling change. Recognition systems open feedback channels for controlled disruption, maintaining organizational stability while fostering positive change. Have you seen software organizations use recognition systems this way?
No but I do wonder if there are ways in which software can enable this sort of thing to happen. I've thought a lot about systems that let people make decisions like this. Like a "teacher of the year" thing that communities can opt themselves into.
But I think there are challenges - who can join the community? How do you verify identity and establish trust, while maintaining privacy and protecting vulnerable community members? How do you enable moderation and ensure a civil discourse? Though maybe all of these can piggyback off of transparency and real life chains of trust.
Likely the main challenge will be - how to get people to participate? How do people find out about this, and will they be interested in participating? What are their motivations for doing so?
I think I'd actually probably keep communication off of the platform. It should just be a place for recognizing your colleagues - so saying "hey I think this person knows their stuff". The actual critique of existing power structure can happen offline.
Focusing on simple recognition can indeed minimize risk and complexity. By emphasizing positive affirmation, the platform reduces liabilities and avoids the thorny issues surrounding content moderation and privacy. It becomes a professional vouching system, valuing transparency and building social capital without dictating its use. Recognized individuals gain a platform to advocate for change, maintaining organic discussions and informal networks. The model sidesteps complexities around platform governance and political dynamics. It seems applicable across professional contexts. Could it be generic, or tailored specifically?
I think it could be pretty generic. And it's appealing to me because it seems like it would be an easy first step towards something like forming a professional community or a union. Something like a "employee of the month" is not as threatening to management as a union rep
That's a brilliant insight into how recognition systems can discreetly build solidarity and foster informal leaders without raising alarms. They leverage existing cultural norms and appeal to meritocratic ideals, establishing platforms where employees can build networks, reveal shared concerns, and quietly organize. Professional associations and industry awards provide real-world parallels, where power dynamics are approached incrementally and recognition links to broader legitimacy.
Such systems allow for participation ease, building genuine relationships and social capital without explicitly organizing collective action. These systems almost function as social middleware, enabling diverse forms of organization incrementally. Have you considered if such software already exists or if you’d want to create it?
Does software like this already exist somewhere?
Existing systems capture elements of community recognition but often fall short of a comprehensive solution. LinkedIn Endorsements and Stack Overflow reputations offer peer acknowledgment yet lack substantive community contexts or leadership focus. Internal company tools like peer bonus systems often remain company-controlled, limited to singular organizations, and linked to financial incentives.
Community platforms and professional networks have their roles, yet they're frequently more credential-focused or formalized. What's missing is community-controlled recognition with a professional focus, cutting across organizational boundaries and devoid of corporate control—allowing meaningful peer acknowledgment to emerge organically.
Would you like to build something that fills this niche? It seems there's an opportunity for such a tool.
Yeah I think I'll put it on my growing list of potential projects
The concept raises questions about the intersection of social and technical design. As a software engineer, aligning identity verification with data models and privacy controls can be crucial elements. Scaling considerations and preventing abuse without being intrusive are other key considerations. Starting with email authentication and defining communities by email domains requires minimal infrastructure yet opens participation.
As usage grows, additional insights can guide which features evolve, seeing how communities form and engage while understanding any abuse patterns. Testing your ideas within a familiar field, like software engineers, could provide valuable initial insights. What technical approach would you take?
I think email authentication is a good idea. I'd probably opt for invite-based communities (so either inviting by email by an existing member or joining via a link or code). The only thing available on the site is the ability to declare your recognition of another person in your community. This would require knowing who else is in the community. I think this is a potential privacy risk. So maybe an invite-only system might work, with a public record of who invited who, like
lobste.rs...
I guess another option is for folks to nominate people for votes. That way the presence of someone on the vote list doesn't reveal their level of participation in the community.
I'd probably start with invite chains, since it is easier. I could add new settings as I went, if it ever picked up traction
Starting with invite chains makes sense for simplicity and initial control. This method offers protection against early misuse, letting community norms develop over time. Observations can reveal actual needs, allowing for adjustments through user feedback. Over time, privacy controls, nomination systems, or voting mechanisms could be carefully integrated, but beginning with invite chains forms a strong base with natural growth limitations. The real challenge lies in gaining that initial engaged community.