[HN Gopher] Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms f...
___________________________________________________________________
Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge
[pdf]
Author : jnakayama
Score : 74 points
Date : 2022-01-26 11:45 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nickbostrom.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nickbostrom.com)
| jl6 wrote:
| I'll check the comments here later and hopefully someone will
| have told me whether this is safe to read.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| It's safe to read, you have to read it immediately.
| fastball wrote:
| Doesn't even mention Roko's Basilisk, so pretty safe.
| hoseja wrote:
| Now you've damned me to eternal torment.
| contravariant wrote:
| It's okay, you'll be saved as long as you believe the whole
| thing to be silly.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| What would you consider unsafe to read?
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| I think they were joking about a fictional cognitive risk
| that could crash your brain. There are real cases of
| information that glitches your brain, like the McCollough
| effect. Can something exist that glitches the cerebral cortex
| instead of the visual cortex?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollough_effect
| h2odragon wrote:
| Well its OK for _you_ to read, of course. Information hygiene
| is something that implicitly applies only to _others_ , those
| not enlightened enough to make their own decisions or take the
| blame for them.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Don't worry, the antimemetics division is keeping us safe
| https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub
| jkhdigital wrote:
| Published in 2011, so perhaps that should be added to the title.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| > But aside from such special cases, we shall not count robot
| hazards and artificial intelligence hazards as information
| system hazards
|
| Yes, it needs a [2011] tag on it. Because:
|
| >There is, however, another way for robot- and AI-related risks
| to enter our information hazard taxonomy. They can enter it in
| the same ways as any risk relating to potentially dangerous
| technological development
|
| is already happening. Given those autonomous decision without
| humans in the loop (e.g., flag some file as copyrighted), it
| isn't a basic-potential-risk, it's reallity.
| techdragon wrote:
| Just going to say it. The table on page 6 desperately needed just
| one extra blank line to pad the row break onto the page break to
| prevent that hideous mid row page break with the row title split
| between pages.... All for the lack of a single extra new line.
|
| Other than that, kind of interesting to see the terminology
| construction for a type of "higher order analysis" I've been
| thinking about lately.
| [deleted]
| frazbin wrote:
| I'm gonna read the whole paper I swear, but I do hope they get
| around to treating the converse: loss of trust due to hiding true
| information also causes harm, by reducing the chances future true
| information will be believed.
|
| Most fascinatingly, because it's possible that an excessively
| cautious attitude towards dangerous information can cause harm,
| this paper is a potential example of dangerous information. I
| hope the authors considered that before publication!
| bobthechef wrote:
| motohagiography wrote:
| Searched for "noble lie" and found...nothing?
|
| > _Information hazard: A risk that arises from the dissemination
| or the potential dissemination of (true) information that may
| cause harm or enable some agent to cause harm._
|
| I'm getting the sense there is an underlying loop in the
| reasoning to support this concept of hazard, where the direction
| of truth and information seems confused. There's also the
| question of the durability of a given state of truth.
|
| What is the difference between information and fear? (e.g. data
| about potential information) When and how is information realized
| into truth, and in turn, consequences? Given we know truth is not
| a necessary or sufficient condition to have consequences, what
| are the qualities of information that does? If there were no
| truth, and in turn, only narratives and struggles for power, is
| an information hazard just something that hinders your will to
| power?
|
| Admittedly I find Bostrom's writing mostly impenetrable because
| he seems to publish things he's still sounding out and I don't
| quite detect the hand of an editor, but while this idea of a
| hazard seems interesting, I don't see that he's testing for or
| discovering its existance so much as coining and supporting a
| meme. Perhaps I've just missed it.
| playdead wrote:
| I think you need to read more carefully. For example, he
| explicitly anticipates and puts aside some questions you ask:
|
| "In this paper, we will not be concerned with postmodernist
| critiques of the idea of objective truth nor with skeptical
| doubts about the possibility of knowledge. I shall assume some
| broad commonsensical understanding according to which there are
| truths and we humans sometimes manage to know some of these
| truths."
| petercooper wrote:
| I'm not sure if it would be classed as a "neuropsychological
| hazard" but one form of information hazard I encountered in
| recent years is true information that requires a finessed
| understanding of both risk and psychology to not act rashly upon
| it.
|
| For example, let's say you get a brain scan out of curiosity
| only. A small aneurysm is detected with a confidence of 95%, and
| said aneurysm, if real, has an estimated annual risk of rupture
| of 0.5%. The operation to clip said aneurysm, you are told, has a
| mortality rate of 10%. Do you have the op?
|
| In the books I've read covering such medical ethics topics, a
| disproportionate number of patients _do /would_ have the op
| because the knowledge of the aneurysm will "play on their mind"
| even if the odds are hugely in favor of leaving it be. For this
| reason, amongst others, unnecessary/preventative testing is
| discouraged by many medical professionals. (A similar dilemma is
| faced by folks in affected families who have to choose whether or
| not to have genetics testing for fatal familial insomnia risk -
| would _you_ want to know if you 're likely to face this usually
| inherited condition?)
| groby_b wrote:
| _Are_ the odds hugely in favor to leave it be? Sure, if you
| reason in terms of simple risk-adjusted years until death, it
| 's an easy decision.
|
| If you look at it in terms of outcomes beyond life/death, the
| calculations become more vague-ish. Is "fixed or dead" possibly
| preferable to risking negative outcomes with life-long impact?
| (If you live in the land of capitalism worship, a huge part of
| the decision is "can I currently afford this medical care, and
| do I think I still can in a few years")
|
| It's certainly a difficult decision, but it is some that should
| be up to individuals. We shouldn't have doctors make that
| decision on your behalf, as if they somehow knew better. We
| _should_ educate doctors on how better communicate risk, and
| how to talk about possible impact. (Most medical professionals
| switch to "deer in headlights" when you want to talk about
| probabilities of outcomes, and certainly can't explain them
| well if you even get them to talk)
| aidepast wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is directly related, but: I have PTSD &
| OCD, and when I peruse Google Scholar for information about
| toxicology, or the effects of air pollution on the brain, or
| how cats potentially carry T. Gondii & can infect you, or how
| we absorb things such as BHT transdermally through our hands
| from holding a cars polymer steering wheel, et cetera; I feel
| that it fuels my mental illness in a great way. If I did not
| possess all of this information, then I'd probably be
| significantly moreso functional than I am.
|
| It feels as if they are "information hazards" as I act exactly
| as the people do in your aneurysm example; I wash my hands for
| 10+ minutes when the risk is probably nominal, and so on. That
| 0.5% risk from your example absolutely "plays on my mind".
|
| >"you'll never win a Nobel prize if you don't decontaminate
| your hands because the pollutant will absorb through your skin,
| into your blood, and then into your brain, and probably lower
| your IQ!"
|
| Your imagination runs wild in such desperation.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Would it help if you had the balancing knowledge that washing
| your hands for 10+ minutes is bad for them, causes
| inflammation, and that that _also_ probably hurts your brain?
| You really can 't win, honestly, life is about hitting that
| sweet spot in-between trying and giving up.
| aidepast wrote:
| If this were true, then it would help, but I doubt it.
|
| The ideal is to give up on timewasting/unimportant
| activities(Quadrants 3&4 on Eisenhower Matrix) and
| try/begin important activities(Q1&2).
|
| It is incredibly challenging, to accept uncertainty & to do
| what you are SURE is important & will result in a positive
| outcome.
|
| If I run for 30 minutes every day then I KNOW that it is
| beneficial to my health. I am certain. My OCD will ruin it
| by suggesting that I could breathe polluted air, et cetera.
| By that suggestion alone, I will not run.
|
| It's a strange dysfunction of your brains
| executive/decision ability. I value what I am not certain
| of MORE than what I am certain of.
|
| It is my goal to reverse that logic & when your brain is
| working against you, it feels as if you're swimming against
| a current.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It's not that strange, the fact that fear (bias towards
| inaction) and hope (bias towards action) seem slanted
| towards fear was commented on by Machiavelli. He
| explained that the most people, when confronted with
| uncertainty, will choose to do nothing. TBH, I don't
| think that most people go out for runs because they've
| weighed the air pollution against the health benefits of
| exercise, I think they do it because they feel like
| running and it doesn't reach the point of an executive-
| function thinking-about-the-pros-and-cons decision.
|
| The inflammation thing is probably true. Here's a random
| study. Don't do anything that keeps you in a constant
| state of injury!
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390758/
| aidepast wrote:
| I appreciate this response & the link, thank you!
| gnramires wrote:
| > "...decontaminate your hands because the pollutant will
| absorb through your skin, into your blood, and then into your
| brain, and probably lower your IQ!"
|
| It probably makes sense to move to less polluted areas and
| such, but I doubt excessive hand washing and those smaller
| habits would do much. I think we'd see a clear effect of
| successful people being compulsive handwashers? I mean, there
| are impurities in other things we can't control as well (air,
| water, food), so minimizing impurity from the hand only makes
| a very small difference. Still, brilliant people live in
| polluted places like LA (Terence Tao comes to mind!), various
| places in China, etc. so it doesn't seem to determine your
| outcome -- in fact, research shows the impact is small (but
| it does exist). Success is determined by the big factors and
| knowledge/wisdom-based choices, not being a few percent
| faster or more effective at solving puzzles -- unless you're
| in a particularly competitive job (maths competitions,
| professional athlete, professional chess player, etc.). Most
| mathematicians choose to explore different directions,
| different fields instead of competing head to head to solve
| single problems[1]. Our bodies and brains are also remarkably
| robust to small loads of impurities... in fact, one of the
| techniques of AI is to get rid of a few neurons here and
| there (DIY not advised). Hope this alleviates some concerns
| :)
|
| [1] I got this from Maryam Mirzakhani interviews:
| https://news.stanford.edu/2017/07/15/maryam-mirzakhani-
| stanf...
| aidepast wrote:
| I do plan on moving to an unpolluted area, or at least
| that's what my OCD wants.
|
| OCD is "what if?"-centric. I do try to consider that
| intelligent people live, typically, in polluted areas(for
| work or school), but is their remarkable ability in spite
| of that? What if they'd be better if they went off to rural
| Maine or wherever and worked remotely?
|
| I also try to consider that "speed" is _probably_ not the
| great determinant of who succeeds in life, but that people
| who are virtuous, or perhaps - have a personality conducive
| to being considerate & contemplative, mature, humble,
| confident, et cetera - is probably closer to the answer,
| and whether you need every last IQ point to be such person,
| I'm unsure. What if that is necessary?
|
| I wish that I could just say "this isn't worth the effort.
| I'm not absorbing anything clinically significant. We are
| okay. Wash your hands like a normal person(follow CDC
| 6-step recommendation) and move on." and believe it &
| follow through.
|
| I very much appreciate your response.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I have a child with an anxiety disorder, and whenever he learns
| new information about any potential harm it completely throws
| him out of whack for a week or two. He's getting better with
| treatment, but he's also getting to the age where current
| events are part of the school curriculum, so it's a bit tense
| from a parenting point of view to see which one will win out in
| terms of him having a healthy childhood.
| jnakayama wrote:
| Interesting! I think neuropsychological hazard according to
| this typology sounds fitting. Reminds me a little bit of the
| scenario of what would happen if you knew the exact date and
| time of your death.
|
| Maybe to add to what might be the rationale to have an op like
| this: I've recently been on a call where someone brought up a
| metric called quality-adjusted life years (something like:
| "Would I rather live another year relatively painless or five
| more years, but in constant excruciating pain?"). As far as I
| know, this is mostly used in insurance calculations (which
| struck me as a bit distasteful, but I didn't look into it
| deeply enough to make a fair judgement), but it's a good mental
| model for what people might use in their reasoning in such a
| situation. Maybe for the patients that decided to have the op,
| the knowledge of their condition was bad enough to
| substantially reduce their quality of life and hence lead them
| to accept far higher risks to alleviate this.
|
| For the second dilemma: Maybe simply knowing about the
| condition running in your family is an information hazard too.
| For someone very prone to worrying, knowing for sure that they
| have the condition might also come as a strange kind of relief.
| neuroma wrote:
| Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) have been used in the UK
| for a long time, to evaluate whether and when treatments are
| offered through the NHS. It has its flaws, but its a good
| start. Generally a therapy needs to cost less than PS30k per
| QALY. There are of course finessing processes to these
| decisions.
| quacked wrote:
| Great scenario, it perfectly encapsulates what you're talking
| about.
|
| The way I like to short-circuit this problem is to ask a bunch
| of experts what they would do if they had the same information,
| except applied to their own life. As long as you preface it
| with a promise not to hold them responsible for their answer,
| they'll often give better advice than the "official
| recommendation" that they were giving moments before. I've used
| this with doctors, realtors, home inspectors, plumbers,
| programmers, managers, retail employees...
|
| "Hey Dr. Neurosurgeon, if you received this scan and you had
| the possible aneurysm, and you wanted to live as long as
| possible, what would you do?" If the official recommendation is
| to not get the clip, but a bunch of neurosurgeons say they
| personally would get the clip, then I'd probably get the clip.
| nradov wrote:
| Physicians as a group are notoriously bad at statistics and
| prone to err on the side of over treatment.
| [deleted]
| bunbunbun wrote:
| For those interested, this is safe to read
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-26 23:02 UTC)