My intuition is #1, but a variant on #2 would be to use the geometric mean instead - so f = sqrt(pq). This has the desirable (but common) features that:

p=q => f=p

But unfortunately

p = 1, q = 0 => f=0

EY believes that EY deserves it with probability p, while NB believes that EY deserves it with probability q.

You are using the same notation the OP used to mean something different!

See Arneson's What, if anything, renders all humans morally Equal?

edit: can't get the syntax to work, but here's the link: www.philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/singer.pdf

To me, it feels very inconsistent to not value animals -- it sounds to me exactly like someone who wants to know argument about why they ought to care about foreigners.

Unfortunately, the typical argument in favour of caring about foreigners, people of other races, etc., is that they are human too.

Giving out cash to voters sounds like exactly the sort of policy third world countries are very good at doing. In fact, the very worst countries like Zimbabwe seem to be the best at it.

Yes, I don't think that the motive is important to its being a scam, but I can see how one might think that.

It also explains why the dot com boom had to burst,

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but one might think the 'purer' motive made it less scammy.

He is concerned that AIs might not be conscious. Interestingly, this is IIRC the exact opposite fear to Eliezer, who is afraid that they might be (though I may be misremembering). I think Tegmark is mainly talking about UFAIs that replace us (rather than FAIs that protect us) - so basically he's saying he'd value a conscious clippy, but not an unconscious one.

Not explicitly, precisely because it is the norm. But it records a great many times when minorities have been wrong.