You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

jimmy comments on Bayesian justice - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: gwern 26 July 2011 12:58AM

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

Comments (23)

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

Comment author: jimmy 26 July 2011 05:51:01PM 2 points [-]

Even better would be subsidized prediction markets. That way people train themselves as necessary to get results.

There'd be some kinks to work out, since you don't always get the answer handed to you after all the bets are in, but I think this would be a solvable problem. You could find ways of having occasional payouts based on cases where there is slam dunk evidence which is withheld and the professional bettors don't know if their decision will affect the defendant's sentence or just their pay. You could also try rewarding consistency between separate prediction markets in the hope that "our actual best guess" is the most salient Schelling point.