The notion of “cutoff value” for a decision doesn’t make sense. You maximize expected utility, no matter what the absolute value. Also, “what we have now” is not an option on the table, which is exactly the problem.
By “cutoff value,” I mean the likelihood of a project’s resulting in FAI that makes it utility-maximizing to support the project. If UFAI has −1000 utility, and FAI has 1000 utility, you should only support a project more likely to produce FAI than UFAI. If UFAI has −4000 utility and FAI only has 1000, then a project with a 51% chance of being friendly is a bad bet, and you should only support one with a > 80% chance of success.
The notion of “cutoff value” for a decision doesn’t make sense. You maximize expected utility, no matter what the absolute value. Also, “what we have now” is not an option on the table, which is exactly the problem.
By “cutoff value,” I mean the likelihood of a project’s resulting in FAI that makes it utility-maximizing to support the project. If UFAI has −1000 utility, and FAI has 1000 utility, you should only support a project more likely to produce FAI than UFAI. If UFAI has −4000 utility and FAI only has 1000, then a project with a 51% chance of being friendly is a bad bet, and you should only support one with a > 80% chance of success.