I acknowledge that there’s a distinction, but I fail to see how it’s important. When you (shut up and) multiply out the probabilities, the expected personal reward for putting in disproportionate resources is negative, and the personal-welfare-optimizing level of effort is lower than the social-welfare-optimizing level.
Why is it important that that negative expected reward is made up of a positive term plus a large negative term (X-risk defense), instead of a negative term plus a different negative term (overgrazing)?
I acknowledge that there’s a distinction, but I fail to see how it’s important. When you (shut up and) multiply out the probabilities, the expected personal reward for putting in disproportionate resources is negative, and the personal-welfare-optimizing level of effort is lower than the social-welfare-optimizing level.
Why is it important that that negative expected reward is made up of a positive term plus a large negative term (X-risk defense), instead of a negative term plus a different negative term (overgrazing)?