So, komponisto, Kevin, Pavitra, or anyone else, any general thoughts on how to calculate p(K | guilt) or p(K | innocence)? (K meaning Kevin’s claim, that Knox will be released on appeal).
rolf_nelson
Karma: 27
Hey Kevin, thanks for pinging me, sounds exciting. I’d bet Knox’s odds are only somewhat better than the average guilty defendant of release on appeal, that “somewhat better” based on her having a more expensive legal and PR team than the average defendant. Can’t find such info easily though, I’ll google around tonight. Wikipedia says we’re still on the first of the two mandatory appeals, do you mean released on the first appeal or on any appeal? What if it’s remanded back to the lower court? Also, I assume you mean ‘released on the murder charge’, not on libel (although that might be “time served” anyway by that time.)
For tax purposes, wagering a charity donation would probably be better, but cash might be doable, I’ll need to think about it. Let me anyway research tonight how favorable p(successful appeal | guilt) looks to me.
That said, from a “getting to the truth” perspective, I still think a 1-on-1 debate is a better way of getting to the truth in the Kercher case than this wager, given the additional uncertainty of p(successful appeal | guilt).
Hey Kevin, thanks for pinging me, sounds exciting. I’d bet Knox’s odds are only somewhat better than the average guilty defendant of release on appeal, that “somewhat better” based on her having a more expensive legal and PR team than the average defendant. Can’t find such info easily though, I’ll google around tonight. Wikipedia says we’re still on the first of the two mandatory appeals, do you mean released on the first appeal or on any appeal? What if it’s remanded back to the lower court? Also, I assume you mean ‘released on the murder charge’, not on libel (although that might be “time served” anyway by that time.)
For tax purposes, wagering a charity donation would probably be better, but cash might be doable, I’ll need to think about it. Let me anyway research tonight how favorable p(successful appeal | guilt) looks to me.
That said, from a “getting to the truth” perspective, I still think a 1-on-1 debate is a better way of getting to the truth in the Kercher case than this wager, given the additional uncertainty of p(successful appeal | guilt).
I agree that AI deterrence will necessarily fail if:
All AI’s modify themselves to ignore threats from all agents (including ones it considers irrational), and
any deterrence simulation counts as a threat.
Why do you believe that both or either of these statements are true? Do you have some concrete definition of ‘threat’ in mind?
Matt wrote:
Here’s a source for the ‘three unidentified individuals’ DNA’ claim:
Thanks Matt. While my claim that there are not three unidentified individuals’ DNA on the strap is tangential to C1, I will back it up anyway.
The Daily Mail is a tabloid, rather than a reliable source (in case the headline, ‘The troubling doubts over Foxy Knoxy’s role in Meredith Kercher’s murder’, didn’t give it away) that clearly got the content for the summary article from Wikipedia. In contrast, the more reliable Sunday Times states instead that Meredith’s, Rudy’s, and Raffaele’s DNA were found. Keep in mind that, as of the day before the Daily Mail summary story you mention, there was no media report (even in tabloids) of the three unidentified people; it seems likely the Daily Mail pulled it from either the Friends of Amanda site, or the prior day’s Wikipedia, which has the (non-cited!) claim.
If you’re referring to claim C2 (Amanda Knox’s guilt), then if komponisto follows through on his agreement to debate me, you will see that these points cannot be dismissed as easily as you believe, and that these dismissals are bogus.
Again, empirically, “:s/Knox is guilty/Knox is innocent/g” helps even more.
Unless people think that “voting up comments you agree with and voting down things you disagree with” only happens on other sites, in which case I’m curious by what mechanism you think this is enforced on this site.
Jonathan, ‘most people’ (even on this site) did not reply to komponisto’s post. To be fair to the site, I would not yet conclude for certain that a majority of the people on this site came to the wrong conclusion, given we don’t actually know what a majority of the people on this site concluded.
Also, I specifically cherry-picked this as the sole issue (out of hundreds) that the LW community seems the most wrong about, so that skews things as well. I don’t think the komponisto fiasco should reflect too poorly on LW as a whole.
As always, feel free to share your opinion on the matter.
If you believe my claim C1 is false, I look forward to hearing your arguments about it. I still have not heard any rebuttal of my claim C1!
If you feel you have been logically insulted, explaining to me why you believe C1 is false would be a good option.
I agree with you only that your POV is popular on this topic on this site and mine is not; I knew that going in.
War in Iran by 2016 might be a possible candidate.
I completely agree with you that surrounding my statements with self-doubt would have increased my karma.
However, I do not agree that this is a sufficient reason to surround my statements with self-doubt. As I said, I don’t care about karma.
I do care about things that often correlate with karma, such as accuracy and insight. If there is evidence that surrounding these statements with self-doubt will increase my accuracy, I will do it. Therefore, I look forward to any evidence proffered that my claim C1 is incorrect (such as an argument that one of komponisto’s four statements I’ve charged to be misleading is, in fact, correct). So far, I have not heard any such evidence in this thread.
Try to look at the current voting pattern on the comments to “Amanda Knox Test” and tell me there’s not a correlation between favoring Knox’s innocence and getting upvoted. (Don’t forget to load all the comments so you see the people who are negative despite making reasoned comments about the case.)
Ah, but we know from the general pattern of votes (both for posts and for comments) that a certain subset of people on this forum do want to read posts and comments implying Knox is innocent, but do not want to read posts and comments implying Knox is guilty.
By your logic, does that mean you’re advocating that only people who believe Knox is innocent should post, and that people who believe Knox is guilty should not post?
Would you have preferred that neither my post nor komponisto’s “the amanda knox test” were top-level posts, but that we had just both posted them as comments to the original “You Be The Jury” post?
VuV, you have not addressed my claim C1, therefore I am ignoring your comments.
So edited, though I would have thought it obvious.
If your thesis is that debunking the content of a featured post in this forum, is not on-topic for this forum, then I personally disagree. If someone posts false information as a featured post, then I personally would prefer to be informed that it is false rather than continue believing false information. There are probably other readers who feel the same, and I hope this post provided such a service to them.
Sounds reasonable. I wonder if there should be more survey style posts then, but on topics that will have verifiable outcomes. For example, one could pick out a topic from one of the prediction markets and discuss that. This would have the advantage that, at the end of the day, if someone come to the wrong conclusion, they would eventually realize they came to the wrong conclusion and have an opportunity to learn something from the exercise.
Dang, civil-case reversal rates are much higher than the U.S. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11027117874758072323), I still can’t find anything on criminal cases though. komponisto said about 1/3, any cite on that?
There’s lots of interesting high-profile Italian murders on Wikipedia, but after excluding those related to the mafia, terrorism, or serial-killers, there’s not much recent activity left. Still, three of the ones I found (the Cogne homicide, the Novi Ligure murder, and the “Beasts of Satan”) were partially or fully upheld, and the fourth (Nicholas Green) was reversed from acquittal to conviction. (I guess there’s no double-jeopardy protection in Italy, since that would deprive them of additional opportunities to reverse. ) So I’ll poke around a bit more when I get a chance, but so far a 50⁄50 bet is feeling moderately advantageous to me, even with the DNA review results.