For those interested, this is safe to read
Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#12Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#13Published in 2011, so perhaps that should be added to the title.
> 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.
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#14I'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 annua…
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.
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#15I'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!
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#16I'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 annua…
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.
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#17I'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 annua…
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)
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#18I'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 annua…
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…
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 £30k per QALY. There are of course finessing processes to these decisions.
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#19I'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 annua…
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.
Re: Information Hazards: A Typology of Potential Harms from Knowledge [pdf]
#20I’ll check the comments here later and hopefully someone will have told me whether this is safe to read.
Don't worry, the antimemetics division is keeping us safe https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub