As long as you’re reasonably certain that the bottom parts of the utility function are more likely to be accessed through extortion than through other means
THIS is the key (along with some explanation of why you think extortion is different than some other interaction with different-valued entities). It’s massively counter to my intuitions—I think bottom parts of utility functions are extremely common in natural circumstances without blaming a cause that can be reasoned or traded with.
Maybe more description of the scenario would help. Presumably there’s no infinity here—there’s a bound to the disutility (for you; presumably it’s utility for me) I can get with my fraction of the cosmos. What do you think the proper reaction of an FAI (or a human, for that matter) is, and why is it different for repeated small events than for one large event?
THIS is the key (along with some explanation of why you think extortion is different than some other interaction with different-valued entities). It’s massively counter to my intuitions—I think bottom parts of utility functions are extremely common in natural circumstances without blaming a cause that can be reasoned or traded with.
Think of a total utilitarianism style approach, where you can take any small disutlility and multiply it again and again.
OK. Why would this imply extortion rather than simple poverty?
Because you’re the one creating the multiple instances of disutility, using a fraction of the resources of the cosmos.
Maybe more description of the scenario would help. Presumably there’s no infinity here—there’s a bound to the disutility (for you; presumably it’s utility for me) I can get with my fraction of the cosmos. What do you think the proper reaction of an FAI (or a human, for that matter) is, and why is it different for repeated small events than for one large event?