I did not mean to say that they would be exactly equivalent nor that infanticide would be without significant downsides.
How is this not an excellent example of how under novel circumstances, inner-optimizers (like human brains) can almost all (serial sperm donor cases like hundreds out of billions) diverge extremely far (if forfeiting >10,000% is not diverging far, what would be?) from the optimization process’s reward function (within-generation increase in allele frequencies), while pursuing other rewards (whatever it is you are enjoying doing while very busy not ever donating sperm)?
“Inner optimizers diverging from the optimization process’s reward function” sounds to me like humans were already donating to sperm banks in the EEA, only for an inner optimizer to wreak havoc and sidetrack us from that. I assume you mean something different, since under that interpretation of what you mean the answer would be obvious—that we don’t need to invoke inner optimizers because there were no sperm banks in the EEA, so “that’s not the kind of behavior that evolution selected for” is a sufficient explanation.
I did not mean to say that they would be exactly equivalent nor that infanticide would be without significant downsides.
“Inner optimizers diverging from the optimization process’s reward function” sounds to me like humans were already donating to sperm banks in the EEA, only for an inner optimizer to wreak havoc and sidetrack us from that. I assume you mean something different, since under that interpretation of what you mean the answer would be obvious—that we don’t need to invoke inner optimizers because there were no sperm banks in the EEA, so “that’s not the kind of behavior that evolution selected for” is a sufficient explanation.