No, it’s not. You can’t just pretend that the threat is trivial when it’s not. “You’d hate gun control legislation” is not an appropriate comparison. The utility hit of nudging up the odds of something I’d hate happening is not directly comparable. Given the circumstances and EY’s obvious beliefs, the negative utility value of an FAI is vastly worse.
Comparable would be this: every time he sees me not wear a seatbelt, he rolls 8 dice. If they all come up sixes, he’d hunt down, torture, and murder everyone I know and love. The odds are actually slightly lower, and the negative payoff is vastly smaller in this example, so if anything it’s an understatement (though failing to wear a seatbelt is a much less bad thing to do than censoring someone, so perhaps it balances). I think this is pretty clearly improper.
No, it’s not. You can’t just pretend that the threat is trivial when it’s not. “You’d hate gun control legislation” is not an appropriate comparison. The utility hit of nudging up the odds of something I’d hate happening is not directly comparable. Given the circumstances and EY’s obvious beliefs, the negative utility value of an FAI is vastly worse.
Comparable would be this: every time he sees me not wear a seatbelt, he rolls 8 dice. If they all come up sixes, he’d hunt down, torture, and murder everyone I know and love. The odds are actually slightly lower, and the negative payoff is vastly smaller in this example, so if anything it’s an understatement (though failing to wear a seatbelt is a much less bad thing to do than censoring someone, so perhaps it balances). I think this is pretty clearly improper.