At least some reporting that the judge took autism into account. Eg

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/sam-bankman-fried-sentenced-prison-ftx-fraud

Kaplan ... stated that while he took into account that Bankman-Fried has autism and is socially awkward, he had committed a very serious crime.

I’m 90% sure it wasn’t a factor. If we get the full written testimony I’ll give it a look through to see if the judge mentions autism more in detail.

I think it's bad to resolve markets to % s other than YES and NO unless the criteria specify that in advance.

@jacksonpolack I agree, but I’m not 100% confident it wasn’t a factor

I still don't think that's a good enough reason to do this. It's just one market and so it doesn't matter at all, but I'm mentioning it because I think it'd be bad if a lot of markets resolved like this lol

@jacksonpolack I think it would be fine for more subjective markets to resolve to the creator’s credence, though I think objective resolutions are nice, indeed.

Judge Kaplan has mentioned his purported autism (and successfully overcoming it) at the sentencing hearing:

https://x.com/innercitypress/status/1773369511502049336?s=46&t=NAASaDpWsx9Lm3_OYE2hCQ

@patio11 This was not cited as mitigating factor, at least on what I have seen reported.

@patio11 25 years is way out on the high side of a sentence.

@patio11 I'd agree this is a subjective resolution. On the side of YES, it was mentioned in the context of mitigating factors. It's not as though judges list, "X is a significant [edit: market description says "specific," not "significant," so that's a lower bar] mitigating factor. Y is a significant mitigating factor..."

@patio11 Thanks for the link. It doesn't sound like Sam's autism mitigated his sentence, though he did say 'suffers' from autism. I'm tempted to resolve between 1-5%.

@Panfilo @ian 25 was in the middle of expert forecasts and on the low end of Manifold forecasts. The prosecution was asking for 40 to 50 and the probation office for 100 or more. More importantly, there were many mitigating factors listed and aggravating factors listed. The overall sentencing seems to be very weak evidence for the strength of any particular one.

But also, the market description only says "specific mitigating factor," not that it has to be significant. @ian, I'm not sure how your reasoning fits with that.

@ian I also took the statement, "Vague references to medical or psychiatric disorders will not suffice to resolve this market to "Yes", immediately following the bar-setting, to imply that is approximately an edge case. The mention of autism in the hearing was well-above that edge case.

@Jacy Yeah the judge did mention autism, but I can't really tell if it reduced his sentence. It's pretty hard to tell. The null hypothesis is that it didn't. I'd say there is a small amount of evidence that it did, hence the small percent resolution. I suppose I'm open to resolving a bit higher, say 10%.

@ian shrug your call. For what it's worth, if your bar for something being a specific mitigating factor is this high, I think little in this sentencing hearing or most others would count. I'm confident that legal experts and laypeople would say this was a specific (though probably not significant...) mitigating factor if shown the quote, context, and market description.

@Jacy I'll ask a lawyer friend what they think!

finally a market that merits the "autism" tag

@goblinodds Tell the team to make you a mod, and you'll be able to add groups when you see one that needs adding

@MichaelWheatley mrburns.gif

If this defence works I'm going to commit approximately 20% more crimes thanks to new crime:punishment likelihood ratio