Even if we’re not full on fanatics—multiplying probability times magnitude in EV calculations--.2% risks are obviously not worth rounding down to zero. A .2% chance that we were torturing 10^18 people would be the worst thing in the world!
I don’t think a child would need log(.2%) bits of evidence to be convinced that story characters matter. I recommend that your aggregation method treat the hypotheses as untrusted user input and therefore bring them to a common format before you let them interact. I see more than one such possible format.
Even if we’re not full on fanatics—multiplying probability times magnitude in EV calculations--.2% risks are obviously not worth rounding down to zero. A .2% chance that we were torturing 10^18 people would be the worst thing in the world!
I don’t think a child would need log(.2%) bits of evidence to be convinced that story characters matter. I recommend that your aggregation method treat the hypotheses as untrusted user input and therefore bring them to a common format before you let them interact. I see more than one such possible format.