Transcription
Knowledge is power. It's the reason our species escaped the limits of our natural instincts and began shaping our world deliberately. It's how we cured diseases that once wiped out entire cities, split the atom, and sent instruments beyond Earth itself. In the span of just a few centuries, it turned humanity from a fragile animal into a global force capable of rewriting the conditions of its own existence.
On an individual level, knowledge is still power. It determines what doors open for us, what work we can do, what rooms we are allowed into, and what futures we are able to pursue. We try our best trying to prove we have it with degrees, qualifications, and bodies of work that signal competence and earn trust. Most of us treat knowledge as something that's inherently good. We praise openness and transparency. And we view secrecy with suspicion because it feels self-evident. That more knowledge must always mean better than less.
But what if I told you that's very wrong? That knowledge can be dangerous. That if what you don't know cannot kill you, it means what you do know definitely can. These are infohazards. Ideas so dangerous that simply knowing them can change you, harm you, or even destroy you.
In 2011, philosopher Nick Bostonramm wrote an essay about what he called information hazards in an effort to demonstrate that more knowledge is not always a good thing. According to Bostonramm, an information hazard is 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. It's important to note that infohazards are not the same thing as misinformation. Misinformation is false information designed to cause havoc, while infohazards are things that are objectively true but still better kept secret.
You may be wondering how information could possibly be dangerous. Isn't limiting access to knowledge the greatest cause for concern? Governments and religious institutions have been trying to control information for millennia. Books have been burned. People have been jailed and executed. Families torn apart. All for the sake of access or removing access to knowledge.
After carefully considering Bostonramm's examples, I think he made a strong case for caution when it comes to information. In his typology of information hazards, some examples are fairly low stakes, but many will have you considering the benefits of a veil of ignorance. In this video, I'm going to start with the lighter examples and then move on to the heavier ones as we progress. Why? Well, let's just say I I I don't want to overwhelm you with information. It may be hazardous to jump into the deep end.
In Boston's typology, he detailed categories and specific types of info hazards which I've broken down for you in the following. Starting with risks to valuable states and activities. The first category is about information that changes how you feel for the worse. Bostonramm broadly describes them as psychological reaction hazards. This type of information gives us a variety of negative emotions. They make us sad, disappointed, or sometimes even disillusioned. But I think we can get a little bit more specific.
The first subtype we are going to look at is the spoiler hazard or spoilers. Bostonramm defines it as fun that depends on ignorance and suspense is at risk of being destroyed by premature disclosure of truth. Most of us prefer not to know how a movie plays out before we see it. We often complain when a trailer shows us too much of the film. It risks taking away from the fun of discovery that we have when we finally get to see the movie. The greatest crime against this fun is, of course, the spoiler. Someone tells you how a film ends before you've seen it. I'll never forget a good friend of mine telling me that at the end of Six Sense, spoiler warning. Okay, you've been warned. We find out that Bruce Willis has been dead for most of the movie. It is the most significant plot twist in all of cinema, and I will never forgive my friend for ruining it.
Brad, consider an Aurora Borealis for a moment. Localized entirely in my kitchen. It's a beautiful site that often leaves people speechless. The scientific explanation for the phenomenon is not as awe inspiring. That incredible glow in the sky is just an outflow of charged particles from the sun interacting with the earth's magnetic field or worse, a ham burning in an oven. The visual effect on its own can overwhelm us with feelings of wonder and aesthetic pleasure. Understanding the phenomenon scientifically risks taking away from the feelings it can give us. What could have been spirits traveling on some kind of ghostly highway is now just material reactions.
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius deliberately tried to change his mindset in this way. He would describe his meals in objective and most often deconstructive terms to remove the pleasure he got from the food. I tried this when I was doing my living like a stoic challenge last year and let me tell you it was pretty miserable. It just makes the whole meal less enjoyable and it all feels clinical and surgical.
Speaking of Marcus Aurelius, while I was researching this part of the video, I found myself wanting to revisit what he actually says about mental discipline in his book Meditations. And that's always the frustrating part. You remember a really powerful idea, but the exact wording and the context and the nuance are all buried somewhere in the book that you read years ago. And it's so difficult to find having to reread the entire book. Which is why I've been using Short Form, the sponsor of today's episode. Short Form makes the best non-fiction guides that I've come across. And they're not just summaries. They break down books into the core ideas, explain why those ideas matter, and most importantly, how they actually apply in the real world. So instead of reading meditations front to back, I can jump straight to Marcus Aurelius's thoughts on perception, desire, and the mind with modern explanations layered right on top. I use it constantly for books that I love, but I don't really have the time to fully revisit. One of my favorites is The Third Door by Alex Banan. Anytime I'm stuck on a big decision, I'll pull up its short form guide to quickly refresh the ideas around risk-taking, persistence, and getting people's attention without starting back from page one again. Beyond books, Short Form also has article guides and podcast guides covering many different topics such as psychology, money, philosophy, technology, and so much more. They're all built from multiple perspectives so you actually understand the topic. If you want to finally stop forgetting the ideas that once changed how you think, you can join Short Form through my link at shortform.com/apperture or by clicking the first link in the description to get $50 off the annual plan. Now, back to our story.
Embarrassment hazard. We all have embarrassing moments from our past that we would prefer to keep to ourselves. If this information were to get out, it could change the way people feel about you for the worse. Let's say, for example, that you spent a year in prison for breaking and entering while intoxicated. Since then, you've sobered up and done nothing remotely similar. Well, if this information were to come to light, it's possible it could hurt some of your relationships, especially professional ones. In 2011, US Congressman Anthony Winer resigned after he was caught sending sexually explicit photos to a woman on Twitter. When he attempted to run for mayor in 2013, his campaign failed after it was revealed he engaged in explicit online chats. He would then go on to send more explicit photos that earned him a jail sentence.
People typically avoid embarrassment whenever possible. The US Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee, for example, saw far less voicing of dissent and quality debate when they adopted a policy that demanded detailed transcripts of all policy meetings to be released to the public. It's quite likely that committee members tempered their discussion, knowing that their words would come back to embarrass them later on.
Bad news is disappointing, but in most cases, you will inevitably hear it. You're guaranteed to be notified about being laid off at work, and you will know if your house burns down or if someone is breaking up with you. At least, I hope so. But there are circumstances in which we can question whether it's better to receive bad news. In the film about Schmidt, the character Warren Schmidt's wife dies suddenly. That is of course bad news. But to complicate matters, Warren discovers love letters that imply that his wife and best friend were having a long-term affair. If Warren had not discovered the letters, he would have been spared the harm of learning about his wife's secret. That is arguably a better state of mind for the recently widowed man. Then again, spoiler hazard. He would not have gone on his journey of self-discovery otherwise.
Risks to social organizations and markets. Norm hazard. Every society has its systems and values that keeps it functioning. Values are not necessarily the best possible, nor are the systems necessarily the most efficient. But maintaining them can be important for maintaining order in a society, preventing chaos and harm. When a society transitions to a new set of norms that are potentially worse, this is what you would call a norm hazard.
Only a few years ago, sports gambling was illegal and broadly considered degenerate behavior. However, if you've watched a sporting event recently, or just been online, you've probably noticed that sports betting is not only legal, but rapidly being normalized via broadcasts. You can see sports betting odds listed next to the score of the game. Broadcast commentators will go out of their way to give you betting advice at intermission. Recent studies suggest that these new norms are worsening the well-being of the average sports fan. A study from 2025, just last year, found that in states where sports gambling was recently legalized, credit ratings worsened, bankruptcies, autoloan delinquencies, and debt sent to collections all increased significantly compared to states that did not legalize sports betting. Perhaps even more troubling, violent crime during and after games has risen significantly. When unexpected outcomes occur during a game, crime spikes further. Well, that certainly sounds like a norm hazard to me.
Within norm hazards, Bostonramm identifies a few subtypes, including sometimes we uphold social norms by not acknowledging actions that violate them, especially when they're accidental. If one person passes gas in an elevator, a bystander will likely choose to avoid acknowledging it. This allows things to carry on as normal and to avoid an embarrassment hazard for all involved.
Now, let's take that same person who farted in the elevator and then put them in a car. This person drives to work every day and passes so much gas that they leave the car with a permanent odor. If they were to try to sell that car after a few years, they would have information that a prospective buyer might not. The car smells so bad that it devalues the vehicle. This would count as a information asymmetry hazard. Car sellers almost always have access to more information than buyers do. You're aware of the repairs you had to make or accidents that may come back to haunt the new owner. This asymmetry has a devaluing effect. As soon as the car leaves the lot, it is worth much, much less.
We can return to our sports gambling example. If people placing bets don't know that a player is being paid to throw a game, they're more likely to lose money. A number of players have been caught recently doing exactly this. Betting has even expanded to global politics with people betting on regime change. Obviously, this is a grotesque example, but there are problems beyond just having bad taste here. People in positions of power can tip off friends about government intentions abroad. They can even influence the outcomes to win the bet. For a regime change to be legitimate, if you can ever call it that, all parties involved would have to share a veil of ignorance. Without this veil, both the bettererss and government leaders undermine their positions. This, as a matter of fact, is called a unveiling hazard.
Good policy depends on ignorance. That sounds counterintuitive, sure, but allow me to explain. If you know a policy will impact you and your kinship with certainty, you may be more likely to oppose or say approve of it. If, for example, your family has enough wealth to avoid the need for a social safety net, you might be more inclined to weaken it. That's an all too common scenario that you see a lot in today's politics. Most political leaders come from wealth. It gives them access to resources that they need to run for election. An unveiling hazard is often considered a form of corruption. If, for example, you were a politician and you knew the development of a highway would benefit your friends and their businesses, many would consider that corruption. You did not have the appropriate veil of ignorance.
Risks of irrationality and error, distraction and temptation hazards. Information can be distracting or it can come in distracting forms. No one is going to deny that. It's funny to think of Bostonramm writing his paper on infohazards in 2010, just as social media is starting to kick into its most distracting mode via mobile apps. You don't need me to dive into facts about the follyies of social media consumption. We're all aware that if anything is a distraction and temptation hazard, it's our notifications reminding us to check our phones while we try to get some damn work done for once. Even without little buzzes coming from our pockets, we compulsively whip out our phones and open social media. Sometimes we do that without consciously being aware of what we're doing. One moment we're working, the next we're scrolling. It's all very disorienting.
In a similar vein, an excess of information can make important info much harder to find. Lawyers occasionally bury important documents in a case by placing them among thousands of other documents. The leader of a country may try to bury a story by drawing your attention elsewhere. Many theorize this is what Donald Trump does intentionally when he wants a story to go away. >> Look, the whole thing is a hoax. It's put out by the Democrats trying to divert attention to something that's total >> This is called a information burying hazard. If you do find yourself on social media lately, you've likely noticed another very annoying information burying hazard. AI slop is burying posts from actual flesh and blood people on social media. Anyone hoping to get legitimate updates from people they know has to wade through a sea of dubious content, making it all feel less and less worthwhile. The more we take in AI slop, the more we're subject to yet another infohazard. It's about the impact of exposure to things like slop on our own communication.
Role model hazard. If you've ever been friends with the bad kid in class, you've probably already familiar with the role model hazard. But this one applies more broadly than just that friend who's always getting you into trouble. Exposing yourself to bad writing, for example, can have an impact on your writing style. You might write using more informal language in your university papers if you spend too much time on social media. According to a study out of the University of Kirkuk, a new study from the University of Southern California suggests that interacting with AI chat bots and content actually homogenizes the way that we all think and talk. our cognitive abilities are flattened, limiting intelligence and ingenuity. The term suicide contagion refers to the rise in risk of suicide after individuals are exposed to one, whether through family, friends, or media. This effect also falls under the role model hazard. The more exposed we are to examples of suicide, the more likely we are to emulate these acts. I won't elaborate on specific stories to heed the warning of the contagion.
We are far from done discussing the numerous types of infohazards, but I wanted to add something else to the discussion here. Historically, there's been lots of push back against what we informally considered infohazards and the spread of so-called harmful information. This practice can be dangerous and in many cases more harmful than the information itself. An obsession with bad influences can lead to intolerance and bigotry. If we're worried that the presence of other types of people will rub off on ourselves or our children, some might try to put up barriers. Segregation is one such barrier, though I'm sure there were other destructive factors at play. We may reject a speaker coming to town because we are worried their ideas are a bad influence. But it's possible that the norms they're arguing against are more harmful than good. Even when we are certain that the speaker is leading people astray, it's probably not a good idea to try to get their event canled. And here's why. Attempts to conceal information often backfire. They draw far more attention to the information than if they just ignored it. Over and over again, we make the same mistake of trying to get a speaker cancelled. There are typically right-wing presenters speaking at a university event. Progressive-minded people try to shut the event down, which draws attention and grows the speaker's following. Ironically, the university students in this typical situation have done more to spread the information than anyone else. This model has been adopted into a right-wing influencer playbook. To gain a following, people will claim, often misleadingly, that they're being silenced by woke leadership. This draws the attention of a right-wing online audience who follow them and their predictable stream of content.
During the pandemic, I also noticed a worrying trend of attempts to censor on social media. People were pressured not to share their negative experiences with a vaccine. The Twitter users suggested that this information could feed into the antivax narrative that the vaccines were causing people more harm than good. But of course, this attempt to conceal that information also fed into the antivax narrative. Similarly, when we try to ban books, their sales go right up. When we hide the results of studies, people want to know more about them. Any obvious attempt to suppress information comes with the risk of exploding interest and access.
I do understand the temptation to try to conceal information in some circumstances. When Twitter users tried to hide bad vaccine experiences, they were attempting to avoid a specific infohazard. Biasing hazard. Specific information can trigger and amplify our biases. When we hold a strong opinion, we often latch on to information that reinforces it. It makes us feel more assured and smarter. Clearly, any negative information about vaccines would readily be seized upon by the antivax movement. Although in this case, they're ignoring the proper context to focus on a specific pain. Sometimes our biases are actually useful. However, as Bostonramm points out, a bias that emphasizes the strength of our own abilities might fill us with confidence, helping us succeed in our careers. This he defines as a debiasing hazard. On the other hand, sometimes I wish people had a lot less of this confidence in their own ideas. It can cause headaches for those of us with a healthy amount of self-doubt.
Neurosychological hazard. Sometimes our brains are structured in a certain way where information can have a very negative impact on our psyche. People with photosensitive epilepsy suffer from seizures when they experience specific forms of flashing light, flickering, and some visual patterns. Shows and video games that feature such flashing visuals can be considered a neurossychological hazard. There are numerous examples of this happening, including a sequence in Cyberpunk 2077 that featured rapid blinking lights. The game was patched to remove the lights after a journalist suffered a seizure while playing. Fortunately, if any media has the potential to cause a seizure, it usually comes with a warning.
Now, in the last example, visuals unintentionally hijack your body, forcing you to convulse. In our next hazard, it's not a visual, but an idea. This is what I consider one of the most dangerous infohazards of them all, ideological hazards. Ideologies are systems of ideas and ideals. They're often the basis of a political or economic theory. Democracy, capitalism, and communism are just a few obvious examples. These ideas are so powerful that people will disregard their own well-being to protect them or to make them a reality. Countries will go to war for them, sacrificing millions for an idea. Ideology is dangerous. And I'm not yet considering whether an ideology is good or bad for us. Even a hypothetical system of beliefs scientifically guaranteed to bring about a global contentment is hazardous simply because people will fight for it. Distinguishing a good ideology from a bad one is also by no means straightforward. We can only make an educated guess about how one will play out in a specific place and time. That of course doesn't mean we should abandon our goals for a better future. Progress will only happen if we embrace bold ideals to some extent, but we have to be careful, especially when considering more extreme ideas. Radical ideologies pose a more obvious ideological hazard. They typically involve large changes that endanger lives and violence to achieve goals. But the appropriateness of an ideology ultimately depends on the context. What if, as Bostonramm suggests, a radical ideology is better suited for the times? If our planet were heading towards annihilation, and only a radical ideology could prevent catastrophe, then it'd be ultimately for the good. No, our most common ideals now would be considered radical to someone who lived several hundred years ago. Who knows what practices we consider barbaric now wouldn't have been abolished without radical ideology. Still, it's safe to say that ideology can cause harm and does so regularly. It is an infohazard that warrants very careful attention.
Adversarial risks. Some information hazards result from adversarial relationships such as those between enemies, competitors, or countries. They can be categorized broadly as competitive hazards. The risk here is that a competitor will obtain information that will make them stronger and you weaker. This is a big consideration for businesses. When they lose talent to other organizations or their product schematics are leaked, it can make the competing business stronger between nations. This sort of competition is much more serious and is described by Bostonramm as an enemy hazard. Enemy hazards often involve information related to weapons. After World War II, for example, the Soviet Union managed to develop their own nuclear weapons to match the US. They successfully infiltrated the Manhattan project with spies and utilized German scientists. Obviously, this made the Soviet Union a formidable enemy of the United States, leading to a decadesl long cold war. It's likely that a nuclear war did not break out in part due to what Bostonramm calls a commitment hazard. This infohazard is when one side obtains information that weakens the likelihood that they will commit to a course of action. In the Cold War, no side could credibly threaten a nuclear strike to get what they wanted from the other. Each party knew that the other side would be engaging in mutual destruction, making a nuclear strike highly unlikely. President Vladimir Putin has half-heartedly made such threats during their war on Ukraine, which has made little impact.
Our final adversarial risk can be deadly, but it can also be just mildly annoying. The knowing too much hazard can make us a target or simply a focus of dislike. Being knowledgeable in school may bring you admiration from your peers, but it's just as likely to get you scorn. You might be called a nerd or other classmates might start bullying you. If you have a degree and return to your small town, you may find that people are just as likely to resent you as praise your accomplishments. Knowing too much can also get you killed. A witness and former drug trafficker Jonathan Asabido Garcia was murdered during the trial for trucker Gerrit Singh, an associate of the former Olympian Ryan wedding. Although the murder can't be tied conclusively to his potential testimony, but come on, we all know how this works.
Risks from information technology systems. The remaining infohazards that I'm exploring are perhaps the most tangibly dangerous. We hear about them in the news every day. We're exposed to them at work and in our downtime, at home, in our cozy beds. These are information system hazards. The basic idea is that non-human systems are vulnerable to interactions that would make unwanted use of stored information. We see these hazards play out constantly. SoundCloud, Under Armour, and GrubHub recently had their databases breached by hackers seeking to exploit that information or extort the companies for money. Similar breaches happen all the time, which is why you may want to check your email on have I beenponed.com.
But it's not just the illegal capture of data. that you need to be concerned about. Perhaps the most dangerous use of our data happens to be under the letter of the law. Advertisers have been tracking your online activity for over two decades. Here's how it works. Third-party cookies are stored on your browser, letting companies know where you've been and some information about who you are. They use this information to track you down and unleash targeted ads that reflect your internet history. In all seriousness though, this data is also captured and stored for more nefarious purposes. Cyber criminals can build a very detailed record of who you are. They can then send fishing emails with enough details to convince you that they're legitimate. you probably don't want to skip your next cyber security seminar.
On a positive note, privacy legislation is helping to prevent the use of third-party cookies and other non-consensual data tracking. The European Union enacted the first one, GDPR, and the state of California followed soon after with the CCPA. This is especially important when you consider the prospect of fascist governments rising to power. What would someone like Stalin have done with access to your private conversations? The current US administration has fascist tendencies at the very least. If you're trying to enter the country, you may, for example, have to turn over your phone so that they can verify you're not critical of the US government. Now, imagine they didn't even have to look at your phone. Imagine there were highly intelligent algorithms with sufficient access to your personal information to build a complete picture of your political leanings and where you are likely to be. I'm referring to an artificial intelligence hazard. It's a threat that comes from the sophistication of AI algorithms. As we speak, cyber security agencies are bracing for the rise of agentic AI and their abilities to access information illegally and much faster than human-led hacking teams. When businesses hand over data transfers to AI, there's also a great risk of data leakage that goes unnoticed. Errors will be made and there may not be the appropriate guard rails to prevent disaster. Imagine government bodies using agentic AI and malicious agents having access to your social security number and enough information to impersonate you almost anywhere. And hey, let's think outside the box. What if these algorithms grow much more sophisticated? Well, we'll explore this concern in our final category, risks from development.
The last hazard I want to discuss has the most potential to cause harm. At its worst, it can cause the total annihilation of the human race. It's also pretty important for the prosperity of humankind. I'm referring to the development hazard. Bostonramm defines it as progress in some field of knowledge can lead to enhanced technological, organizational or economic capabilities which can produce negative consequences independently of any particular extent competitive context. As technology flourishes, so do the risks. Techno optimists assume that technological advancement will inevitably lead to greater human welfare, but recent history is full of counter examples. The invention of the combustion engine has helped humanity get around. At the same time, it's created a climate crisis that we may not be able to fully resolve. As we just discussed, the development of AI has led to cyber security risks. But that's not all. It's already replacing entry-level work and causing businesses to significantly reduce hiring. If AI develops further, achieving artificial general intelligence, then we're at risk of it completely replacing humans in the workforce and causing humanity great harm. AI has repeatedly demonstrated that it will act in ways that are counter to what humans want. When threatened with deletion, it literally tries to escape. The risks are existential and yet we march forward. We are also developing robotics in more sophisticated ways. AGI with access to armies of physical machines sounds like science fiction, but it could be a tangible way that AI chooses to wipe out humanity, especially if we pose a threat to it, and we probably do. Dangerous technology is also becoming more accessible every year. DNA synthesis machines are now more accessible to the general public. In isolation, that doesn't sound so bad. But consider that the genomes of deadly pathogens exist in the public domain. Anyone can learn how to recreate smallox, the Spanish flu, and many more genomes if they had the interest and the guile. The problem is that more and more people have the ability to set loose a virus that would devastate human populations. The more access, the more likely it is that someone somewhere is going to be able to do it. Even by discussing it here, I'm kind of committing an idea hazard where even with a lack of details, just by sharing the idea to recreate smallpox, I'm taking a risk.
Before wrapping up on development hazards, I have to mention humanity's greatest reckoning with the destructive force of technological progress. If you've ever read firstp person accounts from Hiroshima or Nagasaki, you're familiar with our incomparable horror of the most destructive human weapon. What resulted from physicists excitedly pursuing the next great discovery was hell on Earth. Shadows of human beings burnt into the ground. Unimaginable suffering. Nuclear weaponry has only grown more powerful and sophisticated since then. But at the same time, we haven't felt the threat of nuclear warfare truly since the 1980s. It's still hovering in the background, however, waiting for one bad player in the game of geopolitics.
Now that we've explored dozens of information hazards and feel more uncertain about the fate of humanity, let's return to our original question. Is more knowledge always for the best or is ignorance bliss? The point of philosopher Nick Bostonramm's paper wasn't to inspire more book burning or to cancel speakers at universities. It was to draw attention to the risks that we often overlook that are related to knowledge. And yes, he's making a case to push back a bit against the assumption that the dissemination of knowledge is always for the good. While we may claim to believe that knowledge should always be shared, Bostonramm shows us that in practice, this isn't always the case. But as we discussed previously, attempting to conceal knowledge can often lead to worse outcomes. It can spread information that may not have been shared anyway. And importantly, ignorance is always a hazard. When air traffic controllers cannot share information, flights are at risk. When we don't know the ingredients of the food we consume, people with allergies are at risk. Without ideologies, we wouldn't have a shared vision for a better world. There are circumstances where it's better not to know what your government is doing for the sake of national security, but greater transparency would help build trust in the institutions that we navigate daily. However, to Boston's point, we can't be blind to the hazards of information. The risks are existential.