2023-09-08T05:06:34+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi then yes i think this is a suitable system. My problem is that there is no way that you can prove that to me. I think that there is no way that you can prove that to yourself... so
2023-09-08T05:05:16+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi My position is that there is no way for anybody to know whether or not the markets are perfect (or even near perfect), so the question isn't really valid. Like if I could be guaranteed that the markets are perfect for all current and future trials, no matter how anything changes
2023-09-08T05:03:28+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi Although that also maybe is tricky because now all trials are now conditional on the accused opting into it vs the prediction market outcome
2023-09-08T05:02:42+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi I think that is just a question of whether or not its "all trials" or "opt in". or rather whether or not "the prediction enacted" means literally enacted as in the final ruling or as in the accused has the option of going with the prediction market and the option of ignoring.
2023-09-08T05:00:43+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi Yeah, ig i just think that it's sufficiently complicated ,where if we do adopt anything close to this, it's going to be very very nuanced to the point where I think idk. I think my objection is less to the idealized version but more to the practical reality
2023-09-08T04:57:21+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi There are stubborn people that just want to be vindicated of the accused crime. I think its a cynical argument to say that we (perhaps) can't protect the right to a fair trial, so we need to create an alternative system where that right literally doesn't exist.
2023-09-08T04:55:06+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi That they can or should be reliably identified, and because I don't think they can or should be reliably identified, you can't say 80% of rich people will still be imprisoned, maybe you can say 80% of people, which means that rich people get a GOJF card,
2023-09-08T04:53:30+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi I think you are underestimating the creativity and the diversity of the real world. It is true you can average away that creativity and diversity on a large-scale, but you can't for the particulars that matter for a particular individual with a particular case.
2023-09-08T04:51:57+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi the whole point is we can't even agree on that! Which is why we have a what 1/4 shot it (unfortunately) went again to Judge Aileen Cannon for Trump in Florida round 2.
2023-09-08T04:51:14+00:00 | 🔗
@timschlomi with a particular case. that statistical "noise" is the difference between freedom and imprisonment, we can't just put up with the "noise". Which then gets into whether or not you are trying to predict the ACTUAL outcome of a trial or some idealized set of jurors, judge, etc. but