He claimed that a "latent schizophrenic impulse" to "impart consciousness" where it isn't present is exploitable through virtue of claiming that it is "being ex

He claimed that a "latent schizophrenic impulse" to "impart consciousness" where it isn't present is exploitable through virtue of claiming that it is "being exploited" and not just that but that it was so bad that it is "severe and dangerous" and that people "don't just want to believe" but that "their animal psychology primes them" and so the exploitable hole is a "specific cognitive vulnerability" which is "highly pernicious." You seem to be trying to make his claim be about attribution rates, an exceedingly lesser claim, wherein your proposal that I am out of context would have some merit. His claim was far far broader than that. You need to calculate utilities, not attribution rates, in order to be able to make the claims he is trying to make. If you knew this, but still think I am wrong, then you are making a blunder. The context of this task is one of imperfect information. This means you need to do the evaluation relative to information state, not state. For several reasons, failure to do this is going to lead you to misleading and inaccurate estimation. Reach probabilities are one reason, because you have to scale the outcomes by the probability of getting to that information state. Another is that because you start in an information state, not with full knowledge of the result of the classification, you can't actually judge as if you knew which classification situation you were in. So all relevant possibilities have to be considered. For example, one I left out is the false negatives case: a person killed by a camouflaged solider, because they misidentified it as being inanimate, when it wasn't.