Matt_Simpson comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (343)

Tags: willpower

Comments (343)

Sort By: New

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 30 May 2010 11:41:19PM 6 points [-]

The only problem with this is that it works in reverse. We could put people who haven't commited a crime in jail on the grounds that they are likely to or it helps society when their in jail.

Once you factor in the dangers of giving humans that sort of power, I think that "problem" goes away for the most part.

Comment author: SilasBarta 31 May 2010 06:18:19PM * 25 points [-]

The only problem with this is that it works in reverse. We could put people who haven't commited a crime in jail on the grounds that they are likely to or it helps society when their in jail.

Once you factor in the dangers of giving humans that sort of power, I think that "problem" goes away for the most part.

I think a lot of you are missing that (a version of) this is already happening, and the connotations of the words "jail" and "imprison" may be misleading you.

Typically, jail is a place that sucks to be in. But would your opinion change if someone were preventatively "imprisoned" in a place that's actually nice to live in, with great amenities, like a gated community? What if the gated community were, say, the size of a country?

And there, you see the similarity. Everybody is, in a relevant sense, "imprisoned" in their own country (or international union, etc.). To go to another country, you typically must be vetted for whether you would be dangerous to the others, and if you're regarded as a danger, you're left in your own country. With respect to the rest of the world, then, you have been preventatively imprisoned in your own country, on the possibility (until proven otherwise) that you will not be a danger to the rest of the world.

(A common reason given for this general restriction on immigration. though not stated in these terms, is that fully-open borders would induce a memetic overload on the good countries, destroying that that makes them worthy targets of immigration. So indeed, a utilitarian justification is given for such preventative imprisonment.)

Again, the problem is recognizing what counts as a "prison" and what connotations you attach to the term.

Comment author: Peterdjones 16 May 2011 10:40:41PM 1 point [-]

(A common reason given for this general restriction on immigration. though not stated in these terms, is that fully-open borders would induce a memetic overload on the good countries, destroying that that makes them worthy targets of immigration

I'd call that aribtrage. I don't see what memetics has got to do with it.

Comment author: SilasBarta 16 May 2011 10:51:21PM * 6 points [-]

The relevant metaphor here is "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs". A country with pro-prosperity policies is a goose. Filling it with people who haven't assimilated the memes of the people who pass such policies will arguably lead to the end of this wealth production so sought after by immigrants.

Arbitrarge doesn't kill metaphorical geese like that: it simply allows people to get existing gold eggs more efficiently. It might destroy one particular seller's source of profit, but does not destroy wealth-production ability that an immigrant-based memetic overload would.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: GreenRoot 01 June 2010 07:37:18PM 5 points [-]

This is an interesting way of thinking about citizenship and immigration, one which I think is useful. I don't think I've ever thought about the way other countries' immigration rules regard me. Thanks for the new thought.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 31 May 2010 01:07:18AM * 8 points [-]

So if there existed a hypothetical institution with the power to mete out preventive imprisonment, and which would reliably base its decisions on mathematically sound consequentialist arguments, would you be OK with it? I'm really curious how many consequentialists here would bite that bullet. (It's also an interesting question whether, and to what extent, some elements of the modern criminal justice system already operate that way in practice.)

[EDIT: To clarify a possible misunderstanding: I don't have in mind an institution that would make accurate predictions about the future behavior of individuals, but an institution that would preventively imprison large groups of people, including many who are by no means guaranteed to be future offenders, according to criteria that are accurate only statistically. (But we assume that they are accurate statistically, so that its aggregate effect is still evaluated as positive by your favored consequentialist calculus.)]

This seems to be the largest lapse of logic in the (otherwise very good) above post. Only a few paragraphs above an argument involving the reversal test, the author apparently fails to apply it in a situation where it's strikingly applicable.

Comment author: LauraABJ 01 June 2010 03:09:23PM 3 points [-]

It seems that one way society tries to avoid the issue of 'preemptive imprisonment' is by making correlated behaviors crimes. For example, a major reason marijuana was made illegal was to give authorities an excuse to check the immigration status of laborers.

Comment author: orthonormal 01 June 2010 01:40:37AM 1 point [-]

I bite this bullet as well, given JGWeissman's caveat about the probity and reliability of the institution, and Matt Simpson's caveat about taking into account the extra anguish humans feel when suffering for something.

Comment author: khafra 01 June 2010 12:38:43AM 0 points [-]

Sexual offender have a high rate of recidivism. Some states keep them locked up indefinitely, past the end of their sentences. Any of the various state laws which allow for involuntary commitment as an inpatient like Florida's Baker Act also match your description.

Comment author: savageorange 07 June 2010 01:46:54AM * 3 points [-]

Correction: Sexual offenders have an unusually low rate of recidivism (about 7% IIRC); There is certainly a strong false perception that they have a high rate of recidivism, though.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 June 2010 02:11:19AM * 4 points [-]

Correct, the recidivism rate for sexual offenses is generally lower than for the general criminal population in the United States, although the rate calculated varies a lot based on the metric and type of offense. See here . Quoting from that page:

"Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:

* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent."

This is in contrast to base rates for reoffense in the US for general crimes which ranges from around 40% to 60% depending on the metric see here.

This isn't the only example where recidivism rates for specific types of people have been poorly described. There's been a large deal made by certain political groups that about 20% of people released from Gitmo went on to fight the US.

Note also that in Western Europe recividism for the general criminal population is lower. I believe that the recidivism rate for sexual offenses does not seem to correspondingly drop, but I don't have a citation for that.

Edit: Last claim may be wrong, this article suggests that at least in the UK recidivism rates are close to those in the US for the general criminal population.

Comment author: cupholder 07 June 2010 02:20:45AM 0 points [-]

Note also that in Western Europe recividism for the general criminal population is lower.

Edit: Last claim may be wrong, this article suggests that at least in the UK recidivism rates are close to those in the US for the general criminal population.

You might still be mostly correct about Western Europe - the UK could be an outlier relative to the rest of Western Europe.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 June 2010 02:00:54AM 1 point [-]

Citation, please?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 07 June 2010 02:22:32AM * 2 points [-]

See my reply to Savageorange where I gave the statistics and citations here. Savage is correct although the phenomenon isn't as strong as Savage makes it out to be.

Comment author: Yvain 31 May 2010 09:49:02PM 7 points [-]

I'll bite that bullet. I already have in the case of insane people and arguably the case terrorists who belong to a terrorist cell and are hatching terrorist plots but haven't committed any attacks yet.

But it would have to be pretty darned accurate, and there would have to be a very low margin of error.

Comment author: SilasBarta 31 May 2010 07:24:52PM 6 points [-]

Why would this institution necessarily imprison them? Why not just require the different risk classes to buy liability insurance for future damages they'll cause, with the riskier ones paying higher rates? Then they'd only have to imprison the ones that can't pay for their risk. (And prohibition of something for which the person can't bear the risk cost is actually pretty common today; it's just not applied to mere existence in society, at least in your own country.)

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 31 May 2010 03:58:34PM 4 points [-]

My only reservation is that I might actually intrinsically value "innocent until proven guilty." Drawing the line between intrinsic values and extremely useful but only instrumental values is a difficult problem when faced with the sort of value uncertainty that we [humans] have.

So assuming that this isn't an intrinsic value, sure, I'll bite that bullet. If it is, would still bite the bullet assuming that the gains from preemptive imprisonment outweigh the losses associated with preemptive imprisonment being an intrinsic bad.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 31 May 2010 09:10:40AM * 6 points [-]

Yes, this is obviously (to me) the right thing to do if possible. For example, we put down rabid dogs before they bite anyone (as far as I know). I can't think of any real-world human-applicable examples off the top of my head, though - although some groups are statistically more liable to crime than others, the utility saved would be far more than outweighed by the disutility of the mass imprisonment.

Comment author: JGWeissman 31 May 2010 01:55:19AM 6 points [-]

So if there existed a hypothetical institution with the power to mete out preventive imprisonment, and which would reliably base its decisions on mathematically sound consequentialist arguments, would you be OK with it? I'm really curious how many consequentialists here would bite that bullet.

If this institution is totally honest, and extremely accurate in making predictions, so that obeying the laws it enforces is like one-boxing in Newcomb's problem, and somehow an institution with this predictive power has no better option than imprisonment, then yes I would be OK with it.

I don't trust any human institution to satisfy the first two criteria (honesty and accuracy), and I expect anything that does satisfy the first two would not satisfy the third (not better option).

This seems to be the largest lapse of logic in the (otherwise very good) above post. Only a few paragraphs above an argument involving the reversal test, the author apparently fails to apply it in a situation where it's strikingly applicable.

The topic of preemptive imprisonment was not under discussion, so it seems strange to consider it an error not to apply a reversal test to it.

Comment author: Houshalter comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: Yvain 31 May 2010 09:52:31PM 6 points [-]

Your first sentence is a classic summary of the deontological position. There's nothing on Less Wrong I can think of explaining why most of us wouldn't agree with it, which is a darned shame in my opinion.

The part about mass extermination I can talk about more confidently. Consequentialists only do things if the benefits are greater than the cost. Preemptive imprisonment would work if the benefits in lower crime were greater than the very real cost to the imprisoned individual. Mass extermination doesn't leave anyone better off, cause they're all dead, so there's no benefit and a huge cost.

Comment author: Houshalter 31 May 2010 10:33:07PM * 0 points [-]

Your first sentence is a classic summary of the deontological position. There's nothing on Less Wrong I can think of explaining why most of us wouldn't agree with it, which is a darned shame in my opinion.

Err, maybe "most sacred rights" was the wrong wording. How about "moral values". Same thing, don't get technical.

The part about mass extermination I can talk about more confidently. Consequentialists only do things if the benefits are greater than the cost. Preemptive imprisonment would work if the benefits in lower crime were greater than the very real cost to the imprisoned individual. Mass extermination doesn't leave anyone better off, cause they're all dead, so there's no benefit and a huge cost.

But your assuming that "Mass extermination doesn't leave anyone better off, cause they're all dead". How do you define "better off". Once you can do this, maybe that will make more sense. Oh, by the way, exterminating groups of individuals could make, in certain situations, things "better off". So maybe mass exterminations would have no advantage, but slaughtering that entire mafia family could save us alot of trouble. Then you get back to the "eye for an eye" scenario. Harsher punishments create a greater deterent for the individual and the rest of society. Not to mention that amputations and executions are by far cheaper and easier then prisons.

Comment author: orthonormal 01 June 2010 01:32:37AM * 11 points [-]

Err, maybe "most sacred rights" was the wrong wording. How about "moral values".

This goes deeper than you think. The position we're advocating, in essence, is that

There are no inalienable rights or ontologically basic moral values. Everything we're talking about when we use normative language is a part of us, not a property of the universe as a whole.
This doesn't force us to be nihilists. Even if it's just me that cares about not executing innocent people, I still care about it.
It's really easy to get confused thinking about ethics; it's a slippery problem.
The best way to make sure that more of what we value happens, generally speaking, is some form of consequentialist calculus. (I personally hesitate to call this utilitarianism because that's often thought of as concerned only with whether people are happy, and I care about some other things as well.)
This doesn't mean we should throw out all general rules; some absolute ethical injunctions should be followed even when it "seems like they shouldn't", because of the risk of one's own thought processes being corrupted in typical human ways.
This may sound strange, but in typical situations it all adds up to normality: you won't see a rationalist consequentialist running around offing people because they've calculated them to be net negatives for human values. It can change the usual answers in extreme hypotheticals, in dealing with uncertainty, and in dealing with large numbers; but that's because "common-sense" thinking ends up being practically incoherent in recognizable ways when those variables are added.

I don't expect you to agree with all of this, but I hope you'll give it the benefit of the doubt as something new, which might make sense when discussed further...

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 June 2010 12:10:46AM 2 points [-]

So maybe mass exterminations would have no advantage, but slaughtering that entire mafia family could save us alot of trouble.

In theory, sure. In practice, there's a large number of social dynamics, involving things such as people's tendency to abuse power, that would make this option non-worthwhile.

Similar considerations apply to a lot of other things, including many of the ones you mention, such as creating an "eye for eye" society. Yes, you could get overall bad results if you just single-mindedly optimized for one or two variables, but that's why we try to look at the whole picture.

Comment author: Houshalter 01 June 2010 01:36:27AM 0 points [-]

In theory, sure. In practice, there's a large number of social dynamics, involving things such as people's tendency to abuse power, that would make this option non-worthwhile.

Allright, so what if it was done by a hypothetical super intelligent AI or an omnicient being of somesort. Would you be ok with it then?

Similar considerations apply to a lot of other things, including many of the ones you mention, such as creating an "eye for eye" society. Yes, you could get overall bad results if you just single-mindedly optimized for one or two variables, but that's why we try to look at the whole picture.

This is exactly what I mean. What are we trying to "optimize" for?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 01 June 2010 01:43:03AM * 3 points [-]

Allright, so what if it was done by a hypothetical super intelligent AI or an omnicient being of somesort. Would you be ok with it then?

Probably not, because it really was a super-intelligent AI, it could solve the problem without needing to kill anyone.

This is exactly what I mean. What are we trying to "optimize" for?

For general well-being. Something among the lines of "the amount of happiness minus the amount of suffering", or "the successful implementation of preferences" would probably be a decent first approximation, but even those have plenty of caveats (we probably wouldn't want to just turn everyone to wireheads, for instance). Human values are too complex to really be summed in any brief description. Or book-length ones, for that matter.

Comment author: Houshalter 01 June 2010 02:28:36AM 0 points [-]

Probably not, because it really was a super-intelligent AI, it could solve the problem without needing to kill anyone.

They could possibly come up with an alternative, but we must consider that it very well may be the most efficient thing to do is to kill them, unless we implement goals that make the killing the least efficient option. If your going with AI, then there is another thing to consider: time. How much time would the AI spend considering its options and judging the person in question? Shortest amount of time possible? Longest? There is no such thing as an ultimate trade off.

For general well-being. Something among the lines of "the amount of happiness minus the amount of suffering", or "the successful implementation of preferences" would probably be a decent first approximation, but even those have plenty of caveats (we probably wouldn't want to just turn everyone to wireheads, for instance). Human values are too complex to really be summed in any brief description. Or book-length ones, for that matter.

In other words, we have to set its goal as the ability to predict our values, which is a problem since you can't make AI goals in english.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Vladimir_M 31 May 2010 02:05:54AM * 3 points [-]

If this institution is totally honest, and extremely accurate in making predictions, so that obeying the laws it enforces is like one-boxing in Newcomb's problem, and somehow an institution with this predictive power has no better option than imprisonment, then yes I would be OK with it.

Please see the edit I just added to the post; it seems like my wording wasn't precise enough. I had in mind statistical treatment of large groups, not prediction of behavior on an individual basis (which I assume is the point of your analogy with Newcomb's problem).

The topic of preemptive imprisonment was not under discussion, so it seems strange to consider it an error not to apply a reversal test to it.

I agree that it's not critical to the main point of the post, but I would say that it's a question that deserves at least a passing mention in any discussion of a consequentialist model of blame, even a tangential one.

Comment author: ocr-fork 31 May 2010 06:01:55AM 2 points [-]

If this institution is totally honest, and extremely accurate in making predictions, so that obeying the laws it enforces is like one-boxing in Newcomb's problem, and somehow an institution with this predictive power has no better option than imprisonment, then yes I would be OK with it.

Please see the edit I just added to the post; it seems like my wording wasn't precise enough. I had in mind statistical treatment of large groups, not prediction of behavior on an individual basis (which I assume is the point of your analogy with Newcomb's problem).

I would also be ok with this... however by your own definition it would never happen in practice, except for extreme cases like cults or a rage virus that only infects redheads.

Comment author: babblefrog 31 May 2010 04:23:52PM 1 point [-]

How much of a statistical correlation would you require? Anything over 50%? 90%? 99%? I'd still have a problem with this. "It is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." - Ben Franklin

Comment author: dclayh 31 May 2010 09:12:04PM 1 point [-]

An article by SteveLandsburg on a similar quote.

And a historical overview of related quotes.

Comment author: ocr-fork 31 May 2010 04:38:45PM 1 point [-]

How much of a statistical correlation would you require?

Enough to justify imprisoning everyone. It depends on how long they'd stay in jail, the magnitude of the crime, etc.

I really don't care what Ben Franklin thinks.

Comment author: babblefrog 31 May 2010 05:00:56PM 2 points [-]

Sorry, not arguing from authority, the quote is a declaration of my values (or maybe just a heuristic :-), I just wanted to attribute it accurately.

My problem may just be lack of imagination. How could this work in reality? If we are talking about groups that are statistically more likely to commit crimes, we already have those. How is what is proposed above different from imprisoning these groups? Is it just a matter of doing a cost-benefit analysis?

Comment author: ocr-fork 31 May 2010 10:26:02PM 0 points [-]

How is what is proposed above different from imprisoning these groups?

It's not different. Vladmir is arguing that if you agree with the article, you should also support preemptive imprisonment.

Matt_Simpson comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (343)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (343)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login