This seems like an important response: you should have uncertainty about the per-century discount rate, and worlds where it’s much lower have much vaster futures. You should fix each per-century discount rate (or per-century discount rate trajectory), get an estimate over the size of the future, and then take the expected value of the size of the future over your distribution of per-century discount rates (or discount rate trajectories).
It could still be case that we should be very confident that it’s not extremely low, and so those worlds don’t contribute much, or giving them too much weight is Pascalian. But I think that takes a stronger argument.
This seems like an important response: you should have uncertainty about the per-century discount rate, and worlds where it’s much lower have much vaster futures. You should fix each per-century discount rate (or per-century discount rate trajectory), get an estimate over the size of the future, and then take the expected value of the size of the future over your distribution of per-century discount rates (or discount rate trajectories).
See https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/XZGmc5QFuaenC33hm/cross-post-a-nuclear-war-forecast-is-not-a-coin-flip
It could still be case that we should be very confident that it’s not extremely low, and so those worlds don’t contribute much, or giving them too much weight is Pascalian. But I think that takes a stronger argument.