4 ms·
I don't have a problem with very small probabilities as long as they stay within math and kind of "cancel out". What I do have a problem with is lack of concep
by praptak 3y ago
I don't have a problem with very small probabilities as long as they stay within math and kind of "cancel out".
What I do have a problem with is lack of conceptual framework for dealing with small probabilities of real life events.
For example, what amount of effort is appropriate to prevent a one time event which kills you with say 1 in ten thousand times?
- sebzim4500 3y agoQuite a lot. See airbags, seat belts, etc.
- nsomaru 3y agoOne simple way of quantifying this is (amt/cost of harm) * (risk of occurrence)
- Vecr 3y agoThat's good, assuming the cost of harm is a cost in utility and not in money, otherwise it starts having issues. Make sure you have a good utility function.
- airstrike 3y ago> For example, what amount of effort is appropriate to prevent a one time event which kills you with say 1 in ten thousand times? if you value being killed at a massively negative value, then 1/10,000 times that value is still a massively negative value, so the answer is "a huge amount of effort"
- samatman 3y agoFor some value of "massive", sure. But for any value of massive, it's 1/10,000th that value. Then you factor in the value derived from taking that risk, and there's your choice. The reality is that I don't expend huge amounts of effort avoiding tail risks, and you don't either. You might for the ones you're explicitly aware of, but a risk is a risk whether or not you know you're taking it.