Danterious

So the most efficient network, would be that which has as many connections as possible, up to a threshold of desired communication quality

I think that the individual's ability to process information does play a role in how many connections that individual should have but the more important role in having fewer connections is to provide protection from social influence which can hinder the creativity process and help stabilize adoption.

So for example, if I had 50 connections and 4 people adopted a new behavior / shared new information I would still be influenced to not take up the behavior because so many of my other connections aren't taking part and it could lead to negative feedback from my other connections, but if I had 6 connections instead that behavior/information would be much more appealing allowing for newer ideas/behaviors to spread in a much more stable way.

Similarly with creativity. If you have a lot of connections that are giving you answers to everything you could think of (and they are decent answers) then there is less of a need to find creative solutions to those problems meaning that new ideas are less likely to be thought of or proposed. Alternatively being surrounded by that much external information siloes you to think about finding a new solution within the things that have already worked.

A further problem to solve, would be the evolution of parameters over time, which could require nodes switching to different combinations of networks and a different number of connections on each.

This is something that they have sort of studied but not in the way you have suggested. They have allowed individuals to change their social connections over time and have noticed that the connections become more centralized and/or the connections are to people who are like them in relevant ways (This point isn't in this paper but it is in some related research). It would be interesting to see what would happen if they actually optimized the network over time to make everyone smarter.

Interesting.

Yes, I find it very interesting too.

If you've seen other posts that I have made you might've noticed that I'm interested in this exact problem and I have been super focused on research that shows having efficient information networks (i.e. centralized networks, a network where only one or a few voices matter, or fully connected networks, a network where everyone can see everyone else opinions) can lead to much lower collective intelligence for the group and having inefficient information networks (networks that have fewer connections, maybe 4-6, and everyone has an equal amount of connections) can lead to a group being able to solve more complex problems.

So in relation to what you pointed out big online communities actually might be making our collective intelligence weaker even though it makes us more connected.

Link: https://ndg.asc.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Centola_2022_TICS_Network_Science_of_Collective_Intelligence.pdf

I mean maybe there is a way for a stateless society to beat state violence. Or maybe there is a way to make people replace the inherent authority/trust that they put in the current system and instead start believing in another system making that old system lose its power (parallel society).

Calling out rude behavior might be a way for us to help govern the kind of behavior we want.

Something similar that I have enjoyed reading was The Culture series, but it is sort of arguable on whether or not that is an anarchist society. All of the individuals basically are able to do whatever they want and they live on the principle of live and let live. However, AI minds do tend to have a lot of say on what happens or doesn't so it's sort of blurry on whether everyone is truly free or they are being manipulated. But most in society are living happy and fulfilled lives.

That is rude.

If you are interested there was already some discussion about this here:

https://startrek.website/post/1093096

Edit: And no it wasn't a stupid question.

You could follow this guy: @ernest@kbin.social but he is just a developer of the software not necessarily an official development account.

I still don't think this solves the problem that you posed on emotions but thank you for at least proposing a solution instead of just pointing out a problem.

Since I don't see what you have suggested as a problem I don't think I have much more to add.

Are you advocating that we move back to Reddit? I am not going to do that.

And if you aren't advocating we move back to Reddit how do you want to solve this perceived problem?

(I am saying perceived because I don't see it as a problem because with the fediverse you have a choice about where you can be and what rules you have to follow, unlike Reddit. Meaning that there are still consequences if the users decide to leave.)

Oh, I didn't notice. I just saw this on UK memes and thought that it should've been here or in !nsfwmemes@lemmynsfw.com instead.

Wait the pole can talk to the humans? I imagined that the poles could only talk to each other and observe how the humans in their neighborhood live their lives and talk to each other about it. But your version sounds fun. I mean it might even work as a small webcomic.