日常交流中，我们常将信息当作保证，一旦信息失误，便会引发责任问题。本文以“保证”概念为核心，探讨了信息与保证之间的微妙关系，并以实际案例说明了将信息当作保证所带来的潜在风险。作者强调，在信息传递过程中，应谨慎对待“保证”，避免因信息失误而造成不必要的损失，并通过调整自身行为，鼓励他人分享信息。

👨‍🏫 **信息与保证的微妙关系：** 作者将“保证”定义为一种包含保险性质的承诺，即对事实的陈述以及对陈述失误的责任承担。日常生活中，人们常将信息当作保证，一旦信息失误，便会引发责任问题。例如，朋友告知你将在晚上9点去参加派对，并承诺接你。若他未能如期出现，你便会认为他违背了保证，并对其产生不满。 作者以实际案例说明了信息与保证之间的微妙关系。当朋友询问你何时前往派对时，你只是简单地回复“可能在晚上9点”。此时，你的回复只是一条信息，不构成保证。但当朋友提出“你能顺路接我吗”时，你的回复“好的”便构成了一种保证，因为你已经承诺了接送朋友的时间。 作者强调，这种信息与保证之间的转换往往是隐性的，因此容易造成误解和责任问题。

🤔 **将信息当作保证的潜在风险：** 将信息当作保证会带来潜在风险，因为一旦信息失误，就会引发责任问题。作者以自己与基金会沟通的经历为例说明了这种风险。他原本获得了基金会提供的资金承诺，但后来却被告知该信息已经过时，导致他的申请被拒绝。作者意识到，自己将基金会提供的资金承诺当作了保证，因此对信息失误感到愤怒。 作者反思了这一事件，并认识到，将信息当作保证会导致信息分享成本上升。因为人们担心自己提供的信息可能会被当作保证，从而导致责任问题，所以会更加谨慎地分享信息。 作者建议，在信息传递过程中，应谨慎对待“保证”，避免因信息失误而造成不必要的损失。

💡 **信息分享的最佳实践：** 作者强调，在信息分享过程中，应注意以下几点： 1. 识别信息与保证之间的区别： 了解哪些信息是单纯的信息，哪些信息是包含保险性质的承诺。 2. 明确信息传递的责任： 在分享信息时，要明确告知对方，该信息并非保证，不会承担任何责任。 3. 避免将信息当作保证： 尽量避免将信息当作保证，以免因信息失误而造成不必要的损失。 作者通过案例分析和反思，为读者提供了一个新的视角，帮助他们更好地理解信息与保证之间的关系，并提高信息分享的效率。

Published on October 20, 2024 11:16 PM GMT

In contract law, there’s this thing called a “representation”. Example: as part of a contract to sell my house, I might “represent that” the house contains no asbestos. How is this different from me just, y’know, telling someone that the house contains no asbestos? Well, if it later turns out that the house does contain asbestos, I’ll be liable for any damages caused by the asbestos (like e.g. the cost of removing it).

In other words: a contractual representation is a factual claim along with insurance against that claim being false.

I claim^[1] that people often interpret everyday factual claims and predictions in a way similar to contractual representations. Because “representation” is egregiously confusing jargon, I’m going to call this phenomenon “assurance”.

Prototypical example: I tell my friend that I plan to go to a party around 9 pm, and I’m willing to give them a ride. My friend interprets my “plan to go around 9 pm” as an assurance: if I fail to show up around 9 pm to drive them to the party, and my friend misses out on some big thing at the party as a result, then they’ll place the blame on me. It’s a kind of non-monetary insurance - if my assurance fails, then I’m socially liable for damages.

In that context, it all seems pretty obvious - people would normally interpret me as having made an assurance (even if they wouldn’t know how to articulate it), I have knowingly taken on that assurance, so it’s totally reasonable to blame me if I don’t show up around 9 pm. But the whole thing is very implicit, which can make things subtle and tricky.

Suppose the conversation leading up to the 9 pm plan went like this:

Friend: Hey John, what time are you going to the party?

Me: I dunno, probably around 9 pm. [At this point, I’ve merely offered some information; I think most people would not interpret this as an assurance, and would not blame me much if I show up to the party at 8:30 or 10:00 or even skip it altogether.]

Friend: Cool, can you pick me up on the way? [This sounds like a very reasonable request, since my friend’s place is on the way. However, if I agree, then suddenly my “around 9 pm” becomes an assurance - showing up at 10:00 or skipping the party altogether would be a dick move! So my friend’s ask is a lot more costly than it nominally sounds.]

That’s the sort of subtlety which comes up: I intended 9 pm as a prediction, but it might get converted to an assurance in hindsight. And whatever request would convert my prediction to an assurance is implicitly more costly than it sounds.

One major problem which information/assurance ambiguity creates is that it’s potentially-costly to share information, if that information might be treated-in-hindsight as an assurance.

Here’s a real example: a year or so ago, David Lorell applied for a grant from the Long Term Future Fund (LTFF) to work with me. One of the fund managers reached out and said roughly “John, we’re imagining a virtual John Wentworth organization, and here’s the amount of funding we’re willing to allocate this year to the virtual John Wentworth organization. Do you want some of that funding to go to David?” and I said “Yup”. Some time later, David applied for another grant, and the amount he applied for was turned down. I contacted one of the fund managers and basically said “WTF dude, last I heard I was using way less money than the LTFF was willing to fund me for, why is this being turned down?”. It turned out that the information I’d received was out of date, due to various changes at the LTFF.

… and afterwards I apologized for being so annoyed. Because I want it to be cheap for people to share information with me, and getting angry when the information shared with me turns out to be wrong makes it more expensive to share information with me.

Takeaway: notice when you treat information shared with you as an assurance, and check what incentives you set up by doing so.

1. ^{^}

   but do not represent/assure

Discuss