nonevil crime dealing II

electric boogaloo

For those of you who haven’t seen, in response to yesterday’s blog post, mercury commented:

mercury*

I mean, surely the empirical evidence matters some amount. Imagine if hitting someone with a stick was both a thousand times more effective at preventing (M) and that people hit by sticks uniformly reported that they much preferred being hit by a stick than paying a fine?

I read like 1 in 10 words in the ROSE bargaining post and don’t expect to be convinced by the rest of it if I get around to the rest of the words cuz [I think you fundamentally can’t check if someone has always been asmodeus or just became asmodeus to threaten you better and idk how math is going to solve that. could be wrong, that is a danger of not reading 90% of a thing.]&[I can’t see how you can draw up a procedure where it matters to asmodeus if they self modified into asmodeus or were always asmodeus. like, if you go “well I won’t take into account you torturing me because you self modified”, asmodeus will still just go “weeeeee torture fun :)))))” and torture you a whole bunch, same as if he was always asmodeus, and he’d still be justified in initially becoming asmodeus because threatening torture works on some people, so basically eh]

what do you do if the government does prisons for stick people in a box reasons but then every (P) takes it as a disincentive cuz it’s aversive and decides not to (M)? Presume exile isn’t possible because reasons. all the land has been claimed or something. does the government have to spend the same amount on prisons as they would have if prisons didn’t work as a threat? instead of funding R&D for important things like cryonics? I say ‘whoever rules modal must have that iron in him, this is not a game of cards’

Wrt fines, three things, one, I think there’s some harms you can’t actually pay back because of how personal happiness scales with log income or something. I’m not convinced everyone has a happy price for their wife being murdered. One point five, what about imperfect enforcement? Do you fine people who are caught twice as much as the harm caused to fund compensatation for everyone who is wronged by competent (P)s? If you don’t fine enough for it to be 0 or negative EV, surely I should just take up a life of crime in your medianworld, right? Two, I don’t think I care about making an (M) retroactively a fair deal in a lot of cases, I think some things I’d just want to minimize to the extent possible. Three, all my (P)s can’t afford to pay for their (M)s, even with basic income, and basic income seems like the government just paying for more (M), since it’s fungible with (M). Which sounds bad, I don’t think my modal person wants to convert the surplus of civilization into more (M) really.

Question on exile, the people of my world bought up all the land so there is no remaining land and all of the polities they drew voted to not allow murderers in their back yard, what do I do now? None of them seem to want to pay for a city to be evacuated and filled with murderers either, they’re basically fine with whatever the current system is.

Also yes this response totally could have been another article but eh I believe in my ability to have a second idea today.

Previous version of this post accidentally had a draft of an article because I do not keep my notes organized enough, if you think you saw that no you did not, I insist that you did not.

This response article totally could have been another comment, but mercury has helpfully elucidated the fact that I can use my free will to not believe in my own ability to have a second idea today¹¹ Not believing in my ability is distinct from anticipating that I would fail if I tried. In fact, I think I probably could, though it might result in my staying up later than I hope. But then again, I will probably do that anyways.. Thank you, mercury!

Before we begin, I should clarify a few pieces of terminology which were originally introduced in mercury’s Rehabilitation. (M) can be understood to stand for misdemeanor, here used as synecdoche for all sorts of misbehavior which society wishes to prevent, including murder, manslaughter, matricide, and marijuana possession. (P), meanwhile, can be understood to stand for prisoner, here used as synecdoche for any sort of person engaging in (M)s, even if we choose to respond with some decision (D) other than imprisonment.

Now, let us begin.

Yes, empirical evidence matters some amount

I mean, surely the empirical evidence matters some amount. Imagine if hitting someone with a stick was both a thousand times more effective at preventing (M) and that people hit by sticks uniformly reported that they much preferred being hit by a stick than paying a fine?

As a postrationalist, I am not of the position that empirical evidence matters exactly zero. Nevertheless, I think this example leaves out something important. Suppose that the specific (M) in this question is monetary embezzlement, and that you are some large well-organized corporation or similar who doesn’t mind having to send a marginal text message to the government. In this case, as soon as the theft occurs, the government can repay your loss (as a government does) and then either sell the debt that (P) now owes the government to a debt-collection agency or track (P) down themselves. Now, personally, as a large well-organized corporation or similar who doesn’t mind having to send a marginal text message to the government, I am pretty fond of this arrangement. I get my money back immediately. I am hardly harmed. I don’t really care very much whether the stick would be a thousand times more effective at preventing (M).

I suppose, now that I have laid out this scenario in depth, the government might wish to use the stick in order to not have to pay various transaction costs. This sort of thing is a common issue when you design clever economic schemes that work well in economies of spherical cows. I do, as I’ve tried to establish, think there is some merit in prohibiting governments from ever using sticks, but I might well feel differently in a scenario where people greatly preferred being hit by sticks to a fine. I would not especially mind a world where the government can hit people with sticks and everyone straightforwardly doesn’t mind this, that sounds kind of awesome.

Anyways, maybe we have gotten a little sidetracked here. I never meant to say the empirical evidence is irrelevant. It’s definitely relevant. It’s critically important to deciding these sorts of tradeoffs. My hesitation is about basing my argument on empirical evidence unreflectively, in an unrigorous manner, at a time when I haven’t reached the point of breaking out spreadsheets and expected value calculations. A failure mode I fear I am at risk of is citing empirical evidence when it is not my true rejection, because I think it makes a good argumentative soldier, and so (when in careful-thinking mode, a mode I hope to mostly inhabit when writing articles like these) I do hesitate a little to cite certain things unless I am actually sure they are a deciding factor in my stance.

But if you put evidence about the consequences of various interventions in front of me, when you’re asking me to decide on a policy, it will definitely impact my decisions!

Asmodeus, son of Asmotaetan

Wait. Intermission.

Raise of hands. How many of you knew that the word “Asmodeus” came out of Avestan? And you never told me?

I read like 1 in 10 words in the ROSE bargaining post and don’t expect to be convinced by the rest of it if I get around to the rest of the words cuz [I think you fundamentally can’t check if someone has always been asmodeus or just became asmodeus to threaten you better and idk how math is going to solve that. could be wrong, that is a danger of not reading 90% of a thing.]&[I can’t see how you can draw up a procedure where it matters to asmodeus if they self modified into asmodeus or were always asmodeus. like, if you go “well I won’t take into account you torturing me because you self modified”, asmodeus will still just go “weeeeee torture fun :)))))” and torture you a whole bunch, same as if he was always asmodeus, and he’d still be justified in initially becoming asmodeus because threatening torture works on some people, so basically eh]

I think it is plausible that the ROSE bargaining post does not actually resolve all of the very important decision theoretic questions, including some mercury described here. I will perhaps at some point try to read it in more detail and blog about my progress, and maybe eventually try to incorporate it into glowfiction if it turns out to be legibly-to-me as excellent as it claims to be.

Proceeding with a total lack of understanding of ROSE, I will give some thoughts on self-modification as it pertains to decision theory. Foremost I will say that I am confused. I notice that “I should ignore that people often feel driven to revenge and punishment, because evolution instilled these drives into them, and evolution did this because it expects coercion to work" sounds like a bad argument. I think the correct objection to make is something like “that is not how subjunctive dependence works”, but I have very little idea how I would ever proceed to justify a claim about how exactly subjunctive dependence works.

As far as I understand it, formal models of functional decision theory tend to posit a structure of subjunctive dependence as a basic input which is part of defining the decision problem. This is all well and good when we are talking about Omega, where I don’t think these is especially much disagreement about what the structure of subjunctive dependence looks like. But when trying to consider less abstract and well-defined scenarios? I mean, like, jeez, to discuss a counterfactual requires a whole lot of abstract structure in addition to a mere list of what objects are in what positions at what times.

Anyways. As regards to

I think you fundamentally can’t check if someone has always been asmodeus or just became asmodeus to threaten you better

I think I can maybe figure out whether someone has always been Asmodeus. Like, maybe in practice I don’t have access to a panopticon that can look up the whole history of the universe, but it does sound like the sort of thing that it is often possible to know. Now, whether the reason they became Asmodeus was to threaten me better, that seems like it might not always be so clear. I am not totally sure that, even if you gave me total omniscience regarding the universe, I could get you a good answer here. I do not know how to peer into the depths of logical time and tell you who gets to move first, I am not sure that question even makes sense, mysticisms about how you can step into the void and reach the zero point of logical time don’t especially clarify this for me even if I think they’re neat, I do not know how I am to take a messy scenario and present you with a structure of subjunctive dependence. I am confused, I hardly know how to crisply articulate all of my confusion, and staring at agent foundations research until I went mad did not especially help.

As regards to

he’d still be justified in initially becoming asmodeus because threatening torture works on some people, so basically eh

I think—partially because it seems to me that it would be helpful for handling decision theory sanely in real life—there is some sort of principle like…

Okay, suppose the only way Asmodeus knows how to distinguish between people is by the type of hat they wear. Furthermore, suppose that there are exactly two types of agents: the ceedeetee, and the funk-tunuls (as in the traditional folk tale told by Jessica Taylor and Zack Davis). Suppose that, as a general rule of thumb, almost all ceedeetees wear elongated top hats, while almost all funk-tunuls wear golden fedoras. You, unfortunately, are a funk-tunul who has been cursed by an evil witch (it’s a long story) to go around wearing an elongated top hat.

Asmodeus approaches you and says “ʜᴇʟʟᴏ. ɪ ᴀᴍ ᴀꜱᴍᴏᴅᴇᴜꜱ. ɪ ᴅᴇʀɪᴠᴇ ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʏ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ᴛᴏʀᴛᴜʀɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴏꜱᴇ ᴡʜᴏ ᴡᴇᴀʀ ᴇʟᴏɴɢᴀᴛᴇᴅ ᴛᴏᴘ ʜᴀᴛꜱ, ʙᴜᴛ ᴡɪʟʟ ʀᴇꜰʀᴀɪɴ ɪꜰ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴏʀʙɪᴛᴀɴᴛ ꜱᴜᴍ.” But you, clever as you are, think quickly on your feet and reply “That may be so, but it is a simplification of your true purpose. Your predecessor, Asmotaetan, was wise and learned in the way of decision theory, and would have anticipated the possibility that the hat–decision theory correlation may be imperfect, or may even someday suddenly reverse. I am a funk-tunul. By your lights, I might as well be wearing a golden fedora. You have no legitimate wish to torture me and I will not pay your danegeld.”

You hear a deep, demented, even devilish laugh. “ʏᴏᴜ ᴜᴛᴛᴇʀ ꜰᴏᴏʟ. ᴅᴏ ʏᴏᴜ ᴛʀᴜʟʏ ʙᴇʟɪᴇᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ꜰɪʀꜱᴛ ᴀɢᴇɴᴛ ɪɴ ᴀɴ ᴇʟᴏɴɢᴀᴛᴇᴅ ᴛᴏᴘ ʜᴀᴛ ᴛᴏ ᴛʀʏ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴛʀɪᴄᴋ ᴏɴ ᴍᴇ? ɪꜰ ɪ ᴋɴᴇᴡ ᴡʜᴀᴛ ʏᴏᴜ ꜱᴀɪᴅ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ᴛʀᴜᴛʜ, ɪ ᴡᴏᴜʟᴅ ꜱᴛᴀɴᴅ ᴅᴏᴡɴ, ᴀꜱ ʏᴏᴜ ꜱᴀʏ. ʙᴜᴛ ɪ ᴛʜɪɴᴋ ᴛʜɪꜱ ᴜɴʟɪᴋᴇʟʏ, ᴀɴᴅ ᴛᴏ ᴘᴜɴɪꜱʜ ʏᴏᴜ ꜰᴏʀ ʏᴏᴜʀ ɪɴꜱᴏʟᴇɴᴄᴇ ɪ ᴡɪʟʟ ᴛᴏʀᴛᴜʀᴇ ʏᴏᴜ ᴛᴡɪᴄᴇ ᴀꜱ ʜᴀʀꜱʜʟʏ.”

In my opinion, the behavior of the protagonist of this hypothetical was unwise and not particularly prescribed by decision theory. I think Asmotaetan’s decision when deciding to self-modify into Asmodeus does not carry the correct sort of subjunctive dependance on the behavior of the rare funk-tunul in an elongated top hat. It is good for the golden fedorists to form a coalition which (counterfactually) refuses to pay, but the funk-tunul in an elongated top hat does not particularly benefit in expectation from joining this coalition.

So, that is to say, if threatening torture works on some people, maybe you shouldn’t resist²² Nandwich writes about this? It depends on the details and on how much you care about various things and I don’t know how subjunctive dependence works and decision theory is complicated.

But, well, the idea isn’t exactly that it will matter to Asmodeus whether he³³ I refuse to grant Asmodeus godpronouns, as a sign of disrespect. was self-modified or simply arose that way instantaneously from the void⁴⁴ ??? I don’t think fully-formed gods emerge instantaneously from voids ever., it’s that Asmotaetan will not decide to self-modify into Asmodeus unless Asmotaetan expects this to benefit his values, so if you can retroactively prevent a certain aspect of the self-modification from having benefited Asmotaetan’s values then perhaps Asmotaetan will not have decided to perform that particular self-modification. That is to say, it doesn’t particularly matter what the bird thinks, you are playing the game against Cheliax and not against that bird, you should kill the bird to avoid being exploited by Cheliax.

It’s not a threat if you legitimately didn’t mean it as a disincentive

what do you do if the government does prisons for stick people in a box reasons but then every (P) takes it as a disincentive cuz it’s aversive and decides not to (M)? Presume exile isn’t possible because reasons. all the land has been claimed or something. does the government have to spend the same amount on prisons as they would have if prisons didn’t work as a threat? instead of funding R&D for important things like cryonics? I say ‘whoever rules modal must have that iron in him, this is not a game of cards’

I don’t think the government is obliged to spend the same amount of money on prisons that they would if prisons didn’t work as an incidental disincentive. If you happen to do something for reasons that aren’t a decision theoretic threat, and people act in ways you want because you did that thing, then fantastic! It’s your lucky day.

Suppose some (P) comes up and is like “I don’t believe you that it wasn’t a threat. Please justify this claim to me or I will go do (M).” Well, yeah, I’m not entirely sure it will always be possible to justify the claim that it isn’t a threat. That sounds like it is a claim about subjunctive dependences, and I am scared of being asked to make rigorous arguments about subjunctive dependences.

I suppose spending as much money on prisons as you would if it didn’t work as a disincentive would be one way to demonstrate that you aren’t making a threat? I might sometimes want to demand governments send costly signals that they aren’t making threats? But like, if you really need the cryonics R&D budget or something, then I’m not sure doing that specific signal would be much of a priority. Try to find other ways to assure people of it.

Fines, fir, fines, fines

Wrt fines, three things, one, I think there’s some harms you can’t actually pay back because of how personal happiness scales with log income or something. I’m not convinced everyone has a happy price for their wife being murdered.

I do not have a cheerful price for my wife being murdered, and you should exile or imprison murderers. You should probably also additionally give me a lot of money. Or actually, maybe the money I get should mostly come from life insurance? Some combination of life insurance and the murderer’s money and the government’s money. I just feel very bad for people who end up suddenly widowed, especially due to violent crime, and think we should have avenues to support them.

Also, I think my wife is even less likely to have a cheerful price for her murder than I am.

One point five, what about imperfect enforcement? Do you fine people who are caught twice as much as the harm caused to fund compensatation for everyone who is wronged by competent (P)s? If you don’t fine enough for it to be 0 or negative EV, surely I should just take up a life of crime in your medianworld, right?

I agree imperfect enforcement is an issue. I think what you should do is give everyone you catch a little mark on their bank account corresponding to how much they stole or how much damage they did. You can then fine them an amount proportional to the damage, such that the fines collectively suffice to compensate victims, while at the same time helping make crime negative EV on net⁵⁵ Actually, maybe you want to disproportionately fine the people who were more competent at avoiding being caught, so that it’s negative EV for them too? Is doing that a threat? Is there a good way to think of this as an ultimatum game, even though the criminal doesn’t actually have the ability to burn their money? Are we letting people run away to Last Resort(s) with all their money if they’d rather do that than pay the fine? Exercises for the reader.. Furthermore, if you manage to increase your rate of catching thieves, you can compensate previously caught thieves who have paid more than is now necessary.

Two, I don’t think I care about making an (M) retroactively a fair deal in a lot of cases, I think some things I’d just want to minimize to the extent possible.

I think I always care about this. It might not always be a cost-effective goal, and in some cases it might be flat-out impossible, but I always think it would be good if it were feasible. But of course, for things you want to just flat out minimize and which people don’t tend to especially have cheerful prices about, you’re going to go with exile or imprisonment more often.

Three, all my (P)s can’t afford to pay for their (M)s, even with basic income, and basic income seems like the government just paying for more (M), since it’s fungible with (M). Which sounds bad, I don’t think my modal person wants to convert the surplus of civilization into more (M) really.

I don’t… think… someone paying for fines out of UBI should be conceptualized as the government paying people to do the thing they were fined for? Though I suppose “forfeiture of basic income” is a punishment that could be used. I’m a little wary of that idea.

Anyways, if your (P)s can’t pay the fines, probably exile them or something. Or only let them stay around if they’re doing labor for money that will be used to pay off their debts. I haven't quite figured out how I think bankruptcy should work generally, and very plausibly bankruptcy of (P)s should be handled differently from bankruptcy of the general population anyways.

I want there to be a Last Resort

Question on exile, the people of my world bought up all the land so there is no remaining land and all of the polities they drew voted to not allow murderers in their back yard, what do I do now? None of them seem to want to pay for a city to be evacuated and filled with murderers either, they’re basically fine with whatever the current system is.

I like the idea of the Last Resort, the resort which dath ilan sends all the (non-true) murderers and such to. I think it’s worth having one of those. If no one else thought this, then I suppose none would be made?

Like, I don’t know. I guess if you disagree with me about whether there should be a Last Resort then you will not make a Last Resort. I will personally be lobbying for making the Last Resort, if I have no more important priorities (probably I have more important priorities, apologies to my murderer friends but I think you should not have done that). Unless you meant to include the murderers in the set of people who are basically fine with whatever the current system is. If the murderers themselves make no objection then I do not either.

Gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss

Previous version of this post accidentally had a draft of an article because I do not keep my notes organized enough, if you think you saw that no you did not, I insist that you did not.

Thank you all for reading. If you wish to see a draft of one of my articles, you will have to wait for me to publish them. The next one will be tomorrow, probably, maybe, who can really say. It will either be more on this topic, or alternatively be on an entirely different topic, or perhaps even somewhere in between.