Also, I think that things that are extremely infohazardy shouldnât be thought of too strongly bc without the info revelation they will likely remain very unlikely
I donât think this reasoning works in general. A highly dangerous technology could become obvious in 2035, but we could still want actors to not know about it until as late as possible. Or the probability of a leak over the next 10 years could be high, yet it could still be worth trying to maintain secrecy.
Yes, I think youâre right actually. Hereâs a weaker claim which is I think it true: - When someone knows and has thought on a infohazard, the baseline is that heâs way more likely to cause harm via it than to cause good. - Thus, Iâd recommend anyone whoâs not actively thinking about ways to solve to prevent classes of scenario where this infohazard would end up being very bad, to try to forget this infohazard and not talk about it even to trusted individuals. Otherwise it will most likely be net negative.
I donât think this reasoning works in general. A highly dangerous technology could become obvious in 2035, but we could still want actors to not know about it until as late as possible. Or the probability of a leak over the next 10 years could be high, yet it could still be worth trying to maintain secrecy.
Yes, I think youâre right actually.
Hereâs a weaker claim which is I think it true:
- When someone knows and has thought on a infohazard, the baseline is that heâs way more likely to cause harm via it than to cause good.
- Thus, Iâd recommend anyone whoâs not actively thinking about ways to solve to prevent classes of scenario where this infohazard would end up being very bad, to try to forget this infohazard and not talk about it even to trusted individuals. Otherwise it will most likely be net negative.