gjm comments on Hearsay, Double Hearsay, and Bayesian Updates - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Mass_Driver 16 February 2012 10:31PM

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

Comments (105)

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

Comment author: gjm 16 February 2012 01:32:44AM 5 points [-]

If a random 80% of suspects are guilty, the appropriate naive predictor is one that always votes "guilty", not one that tries to match probabilities by choosing a random 80% of suspects to call guilty. Then you get an accurate result 80% of the time, which is a lot better than 68%. That seems to me a more appropriate benchmark.

(Alternatively, you might consider a predictor that matches its probabilities not to the proportion of defendants who are guilty but to the proportion who are convicted. There might be something to be said for that.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 16 February 2012 02:40:25AM 7 points [-]

I think the intended question is whether the legal system adds anything beyond a pure chance element. Somehow we'd need a gold standard of actually guilty and innocent suspects, then we'd need to measure whether p(guilty|convicted) > 80%. You could also ask if p(innocent|acquitted) > 20%, but that's the same question.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 16 February 2012 04:03:09AM 3 points [-]

Thank you! Intended or not, it's a fantastic question, and I don't know where to look up the answer. I'm not even sure that anyone has seriously tried to answer that question. If they haven't, then I want to. I'll look into it.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 February 2012 08:09:53AM 1 point [-]

I don't see how those are "the same question". If out of 8 accused 4 are guilty and two of them are convicted, the rest acquitted. Than p(guilty|convicted) = 1 and p(innocent|acquitted) = 2/3.

Comment author: skepsci 16 February 2012 08:25:26AM 4 points [-]

The assumption was that 80% of defendants are guilty, which is more than 4 of 8. Under this assumption, asking whether p(guilty|convicted) > 80% is just asking whether conviction positively correlates with guilt. Asking if p(innocent|acquitted) > 20% is just asking if acquittal positively correlates with innocence. These are really the same question, because P correlates with Q iff ¬P correlates with ¬Q.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 February 2012 08:27:31AM 0 points [-]

Perfect. Thanks.