I do agree that t in the formula is quite complicated to understand (and does not mean the same as the typical meant by tractability), I tried to explain it, but since no one edited my work, I might be overestimating the understandability of my formulations. “t” is something like “the cost-effectiveness of reducing the likelihood of x-risk by 1 percentage point” divided by “the cost-effectiveness of increasing net happiness of x-risk by 1 percent”.
When that’s been said, I still think that the analysis lacks an estimation for how good the future will be. Which could make the numbers for “t” and “net negative future” (or u(negative)) “more objective”.
I do agree that t in the formula is quite complicated to understand (and does not mean the same as the typical meant by tractability), I tried to explain it, but since no one edited my work, I might be overestimating the understandability of my formulations. “t” is something like “the cost-effectiveness of reducing the likelihood of x-risk by 1 percentage point” divided by “the cost-effectiveness of increasing net happiness of x-risk by 1 percent”.
When that’s been said, I still think that the analysis lacks an estimation for how good the future will be. Which could make the numbers for “t” and “net negative future” (or u(negative)) “more objective”.