I agree and I think if there are any hazards to modern information landscape it's kind of 2 fold (that I can think of) 1) the brain likes simple generalized inf

I agree and I think if there are any hazards to modern information landscape it's kind of 2 fold (that I can think of) 1) the brain likes simple generalized information/models more than specific information and 2) the brain likes information that confirms our existing beliefs more than staying in a gray area where it's not sure what information is true or not. Regarding first one I think one of the main challenges will be finding which general explanations are true or not. This can be anything from cultural things like gender discussions to conspiracy theories to scientific theories. If there are generalized models that explain a lot of phenomena, the brain likes those, but at the same time they can also take the place for when empirical evidence should have been gathered (that doesn't fit with the general model), and so in that sense they can be hazardous. And models that already have stood up to a lot of empirical data are especially hazardous because they have already proven themselves to some extent which means there's even less incentive to gather empirical data. Or at least that's my current (maybe hazardous) general view. I also don't think we should give up on generalized models because they are so powerful and useful, but it's definitely a challenge in todays climate because they get so many clicks and they are very satisfying to know.