Solving the moral cluelessness problem with Bayesian joint probability distributions

Her choice to use multiple, independent probability functions itself seems arbitrary to me, although I've done more reading since posting the above and have started to understand why there is a predicament.

Instead of multiple independent probability functions, you could start with a set of probability distributions for each of the items you are uncertain about, and then calculate the joint probability distribution by combining all of those distributions. That'll give you a single probability density function on which you can base your decision.

If you start with a set of several probability functions, with each representing a set of beliefs, then calculating their joint probability would require sampling randomly from each function according to some distribution specifying how likely each of the functions are. It can be done, with the proviso that you must have a probability distribution specifying the relative likelihood of each of the functions in your set.

However, I do worry the same problem arises in this approach in a different form. If you really do have no information about the probability of some event, then in Bayesian terms, your prior probability distribution is one that is completely uninformative. You might need to use an improper prior, and in that case, they can be difficult to update on in some circumstances. I think these are a Bayesian, mathematical representation of what Greaves calls an "imprecise credence".

But I think the good news is that many times, your priors are not so imprecise that you can't assign some probability distribution, even if it is incredibly vague. So there may end up not being too many problems where we can't calculate expected long-term consequences for actions.

I do remain worrying, with Greaves, that GiveWell's approach of assessing direct impact for each of its potential causes is woefully insufficient. Instead, we need to calculate out the very long term impact of each cause, and because of the value of the long-term future, anything that affects the probability of existential risk, even by an infinitesimal amount, will dominate the expected value of our intervention.

And I worry that this sort of approach could end up being extremely counterintuitive. It might lead us to the conclusion that promoting fertility by any means necessary is positive, or equally likely, to the conclusion that controlling and reducing fertility by any means necessary is positive. These things could lead us to want to implement extremely coercive measures, like banning abortion or mandating abortion depending on what we want the population size to be. Individual autonomy seems to fade away because it just doesn't have comparable value. Individual autonomy could only be saved if we think it would lead to a safer and more stable society in the long run, and that's extremely unclear.

And I think I reach the same conclusion that I think Greaves has, that one of the most valuable things you can do right now is to estimate some of the various contingencies, in order to lower the uncertainty and imprecision on various probability estimates. That'll raise the expected value of your choice because it is much less likely to be the wrong one.

Thanks! That was helpful, and my initial gut reaction is I entirely agree :-)

Have you had an opportunity to see how Hillary Greaves might react to this line of thinking? If I had to hazard a guess I imagine she'd be fairly sympathetic to the view you expressed.

There is an argument from intuition that carry some force by Schoenfield (2012) that we can't use a probability function:

(1) It is permissible to be insensitive to mild evidential sweetening.
(2) If we are insensitive to mild evidential sweetening, our attitudes cannot be represented by a probability function.
(3) It is permissible to have attitudes that are not representable by a probability function. (1, 2)

...

You are a confused detective trying to figure out whether Smith or Jones committed the crime. You have an enormous body of evidence that to evaluate. Here is some of it: You know that 68 out of the 103 eyewitnesses claim that Smith did it but Jones' footprints were found at the crime scene. Smith has an alibi, and Jones doesn't. But Jones has a clear record while Smith has committed crimes in the past. The gun that killed the victim belonged to Smith. But the lie detector, which is accurate 71% percent of time, suggests that Jones did it. After you have gotten all of this evidence, you have no idea who committed the crime. You are no more confident that Jones committed the crime than that Smith committed the crime, nor are you more confident that Smith committed the crime than that Jones committed the
crime.

...

Now imagine that, after considering all of this evidence, you learn a new fact: it turns out that there were actually 69 eyewitnesses (rather than 68) testifying that Smith did it. Does this make it the case that you should now be more confident in S than J? That, if you had to choose right now who to send to jail, it should be Smith? I think not.

...

In our case, you are insensitive to evidential sweetening with respect to S since you are no more confident in S than ~S (i.e. J), and no more confident in ~S (i.e. J) than S. The extra eyewitness supports S more than it supports ~S, and yet despite learning about the extra eyewitness, you are no more confident in S than you are in ~S (i.e. J).

 Intuitively, this sounds right. And if you went from this problem trying to understand solve the crime on intuition, you might really have no idea. Reading the passage, it sounds mind-boggling.

On the other hand, if you applied some reasoning and study, you might be able to come up with some probability estimates. You could identify the conditioning of P(Smith did it|an eyewitness says Smith did it), including a probability distribution on that probability itself, if you like. You can identify how to combine evidence from multiple witnesses, i.e.,  P(Smith did it|eyewitness 1 says Smith did it) & P(Smith did it|eyewitness 2 says Smith did it), and so on up to 68 and 69. You can estimate the independence of eyewitnesses, and from that work out how to properly combine evidence from multiple eyewitnesses.

And it might turn out that you don't update as a result of the extra eyewitness, under some circumstances. Perhaps you know the eyewitnesses aren't independent; they're all card-carrying members of the "We hate Smith" club.  In that case it simply turns out that the extra eye-witness is irrelevant to the problem; it doesn't qualify as evidence, so it it doesn't mean you're insensitive to "mild evidential sweetening".

I think a lot of the problem here is that these authors are discussing what one could do when one sits down for the first time and tries to grapple with a problem. In those cases there's so many undefined features of the problem that it really does seem impossible and you really are clueless.

But that's not the same as saying that, with sufficient time, you can't put probability distributions to everything that's relevant and try to work out the joint probability.

----

Schoenfield, M. Chilling out on epistemic rationality. Philos Stud 158, 197–219 (2012).

I think the example Ben cites in his reply is very illustrative.

You might feel that you can't justify your one specific choice of prior over another prior, so that particular choice is arbitrary, and then what you should do could depend on this arbitrary choice, whereas an equally reasonable prior would recommend a different decision. Someone else could have exactly the same information as you, but due to a different psychology, or just different patterns of neurons firing, come up with a different prior that ends up recommending a different decision. Choosing one prior over another without reason seems like a whim or a bias, and potentially especially prone to systematic error.

It seems bad if we're basing how to do the most good on whims and biases.

If you're lucky enough to have only finitely many equally reasonable priors, then I think it does make sense to just use a uniform meta-prior over them, i.e. just take their average. This doesn't seem to work with infinitely many priors, since you could use different parametrizations to represent the same continuous family of distributions, with a different uniform distribution and therefore average for each parametrization. You'd have to justify your choice of parametrization!

As another example, imagine you have a coin that someone (who is trustworthy) has told you is biased towards heads, but they haven't given you any hint how much, and you want to come up with a probability distribution for the fraction of heads over 1,000,000 flips. So, you want a distribution over the interval [0, 1]. Which distribution would you use? Say you give me a probability density function $f$. Why not $(1-p)f\left(x\right)+p$ for some $p\in (0,1)$? Why not $\frac{1}{{\int }_0^{1}f\left(x^p\right)dx}f\left(x^p\right)$ for some $p>0$? If $f$ is a weighted average of multiple distributions, why not apply one of these transformations to one of the component distributions and choose the resulting weighted average instead? Why the particular weights you've chosen and not slightly different ones?