RE: The Future: An Efficient Justice System Run By Artificial Intelligence
I'm not sure you understood what I was talking about. A Keynesian beauty contest means that the jurors would be judging the accused according to what they believe the other jurors believe (instead according to what they themselves believed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
So for example, let's say you are on a jury. You personally believe the defendant is innocent. But you also think that the other 11 jurors think he is guilty. The system you're talking about (where jurors are rewarded for being on the winning side) would incentivize you to vote guilty in order to be on the winning side.
I realize youre talking about them having no contact with the other jurors, but they could still speculate. For example, if you're in a really racist state, and the defendant is black, you might not be a racist yourself, but you can assume many on the jury are. You would be incentivized to vote guilty in order to get the reward for being in a majority
That's what I thought you meant, I maybe didn't explain my answer too well.
I'm saying that judging how the other jurors might mis-judge the case is kind of like an intellectual high wire act that you can't accurately do in practice.
I think you'd be more likely to stumble over your own feet and go outside of the majority if you start speculating on how others will mis-judge certain info. (It's hard to really guess what anonymous persons' biases are.)
The extreme case where the other jurors ars likely to be racist... they'd have been racist anyways if they were allowed to deliberate. The problem is bad jurors, not the mechanism of trying to vote in the majority.
Maybe there could be some kind of appeal process, where if one person dissents (or if enough people dissent) it gets reviewed by some higher level oracle, and if they decide the one person was right, it's a very high reward for that person. So then there's some incentive to hold your ground even when you know the other jurors are biased.
I think you'd ideally have some way of determining who the best jurors are. You could use the best ones for the biggest cases, and more important as you weed out the worst ones, there's less and less people acting racistly, and less fuel for the beauty contest to happen.
At the end of the day I just cringe so hard at the idea that random people are summoned, against their will with no incentive to do it correctly. Lol. There has to be SOME glaring improvement to that. Intuitively I'm pretty confident that my method works but I'm not sure how well I made the case. Happy to field more questions.