371–380 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most non-sociopaths would experience a huge amount of shame/stress from stealing billions of dollars from trusting people and losing it. SBF shows none of that.
He says in the DMs that the most important thing in his life now is making customers whole and returning their funds. "that's basically all that matters for the rest of my life"
It this real? Is he really THAT stupid? His defense against "you took user deposits and gambled the money" is "No, I took user deposits, loaned them to myself and then gambled the money". I mean this is like nested layers of stupidity. You'd be stupid to do this, you'd be stupid to think it's not a major crime, you'd be stupid to think that this was in any way acts as a defense of your crime and you'd be stupid to ac…
For FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried, incompetence could be a legal strategy - https://www.axios.com/2022/11/16/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-incom... > Lawyers tell Axios the main criminal risk Bankman-Fried faces is an indictment on charges of fraud — one of the more common charges in white-collar prosecutions. But to convict, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone had knowledge or intent to commit fraud, whi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In 2018, Vox launched Future Perfect, with the goal of covering the most critical issues of the day through the lens of effective altruism. In this talk, Kelsey Piper discusses how the project worked out, her experience as a Vox staff writer, and her thoughts on the key challenges of EA-focused journalism. I just commented in this thread about how this story magically keeps getting worse, and then it got worse...
Yeah when I saw it was Piper as the journalist, I was expecting to see a massive disclaimer/disclosure on the article. There still isn’t one. My own disclosure: I have many mutual friends with Piper and participate in the local EA group and contribute to EA causes.
Well there's a sense of contrition there, so that's good. However there's no reasonable excuse. You can't be like "aw man, I wish we'd been more organized". A big piece of this is on the investors. All those depositors would have been saying "Hey Sequoia and OTPP are in there, they must have checked things are sound". Was that foolish of them, to assume reputable investors had done their due diligence? You're between…
> Well there's a sense of contrition there, so that's good. Sigh. So this is how confidence men and politicians and scammers can make good livings. He just said that all the good-sounding things he said in the past about ethics and doing the right thing was "this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us".
People: oh wow so true
He's being honest here, and we should listen to him. Point 1: Most personalities are shams. Ethics/politics among the powerful is a lie/shibboleth. Instinctively you know this to be true, but hope in a great savior is deeply ingrained. Point 2: Regulators make things worse. They are actively working against our interests. He would know best; they created him. Again, we want to believe in the great savior myth, but th…
Is this accurate? That's absolutely insane. _That_ sounds like fraud/theft.
Not seeing much remorse here, but what can you expect from a guy that gambled with billions of dollars worth of people's savings. Don't buy that he didn't realize what they were doing until it was too late. He admits in this interview to lying about previous public positions, so wouldn't trust anything he says here either. I just hope crypto learns from this and normalizes Proof of Reserves
I'm very critical of SBF and what went on here, but let's not over sentimentalise this, they gambled billions of dollars of peoples deposits, not savings. Which clearly is a crime, but you don't store your savings on a crypto exchange, BTC arguably the most reliable of the crypto-currencies is down 70% in the last year. Moves that happen once in a lifetime in real markets happened multiple times in crypto. No one rea…
It was a stupid decision, but at least from their PoV, it was only a stupid decision in hindsight.
I'm super surprised at how open and off-the-cuff he's being here. Did he not put together that the DMs might get published? Is this just the power of good rapport? Is he trying to be strategic here in some way?
We don't know how much money he paid to the person he's talking to. We only know that he _did_ pay money to the person he's talking to, since it's added as a disclaimer in the article. Also it would be silly of Vox to leave that disclaimer out as it' was publicized earlier so they can't run from it. He's thinking he's chatting with an accomplish who's going to help him spin some positive PR to help his last ditch fun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you f'ing kidding me, taking this at face value? Well we can't cherry-pick the sociopathy as real and then start second guessing the bit where he sounds a lot less like a sociopath... can we?
Considering that sociopaths (by definition) do damaging things to people while also: -Using intelligence, charm, or charisma to manipulate others. - Not learning from mistakes or punishment. - Lying for personal gain. It seems fair to call out that you can’t trust their statements this way, if that is what is going on. It’s pretty much the nature of the disorder.
He's being honest here, and we should listen to him. Point 1: Most personalities are shams. Ethics/politics among the powerful is a lie/shibboleth. Instinctively you know this to be true, but hope in a great savior is deeply ingrained. Point 2: Regulators make things worse. They are actively working against our interests. He would know best; they created him. Again, we want to believe in the great savior myth, but th…
Chapter 11 proceedings will not pay investors before depositors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that sociopaths (by definition) do damaging things to people while also: -Using intelligence, charm, or charisma to manipulate others. - Not learning from mistakes or punishment. - Lying for personal gain. It seems fair to call out that you can’t trust their statements this way, if that is what is going on. It’s pretty much the nature of the disorder.
My issue is only using the half of the source that backs up the assessment (of sociopathy) and ignoring the other half that contradicts it. That is not fair, balanced or even good guessing, its just seeing what you want to see in the data by excluding what doesn't support your theory.
All I was doing is pointing out that if person A claims person B is lying about their motivations and good deeds and actually causing harm because they are a sociopath, saying person A can’t claim that doesn’t make much sense.
I have no particularly strong opinion in if anyone is or is not a sociopath. I’m just pointing out that lying about your intentions and good deeds while causing harm is a pretty textbook element of ASPD. It’s certainly not unique to ASPD of course!
Do you have specific elements of sociopathy you think can’t apply?
Or more just pointing out all of this is bullshit speculation anyway because no one can diagnose someone off a couple of tweets in the middle of a scandal anyway?