[wang_li]

Having partial knowledge is good, even in your YOU'RE RACCIIISSTTTT!!!! example. Let's explain.

Consider you have to perform a task that in some way can interact with something in the environment. You have two choices of where to perform this task. In the first location there are 20 red things in the environment. In the second location there are 20 red things and 10 blue things. You know that 1 in 10 of the blue things have a negative interaction with your task. You know nothing about the red interactions with your task. You obviously choose the location with no blue things.

[snapcaster]

You're not modeling this adversarially and that's your fundamental error here. If you look at your "knowledge supplier" as an entity actively trying to deceive you and give you an incorrect world model you'll realize i'm right and you're living in a fantasy theory world

[wang_li]

No. You are trying to change the rules to a different game and then use those rules to invalidate a completely unrelated point. Having bad information doesn't make the fact that partial information is better than no information. It just means you were deceived by the information and your attempt at making decisions was sabotaged. If you are so wound up in "everything and everyone is against me" you have a mental disorder. If you are just picking and choosing who you define as adversarial based on which information disagrees with your priors you are just close-minded.