141–150 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't altruism literary mean selflessness-ism? Can you be selfless with stolen property?
Yeah, that was the theme of Robinhood. Of course sbf is no robinhood.
Just a general statement on people commenting on this saga: Sam wasn't doing effective altruism. He was lying about doing effective altruism. It's weird to me that people talk about this as an indictment of EA...but this rings similar to me as claiming that this is an indictment of DeFi or cryptocurrency generally. Sam/Caroline weren't doing DeFi, and neither were they really doing anything related to cryptocurrency.…
Kind of. Sam was not doing what EAism says you should do. But he was embedded in the EA movement, close to many of its other members, and abetted by people like Will. So if you look at EA descriptively, Sam was very much doing EA. He was lying about his business. But he wasn't lying about giving the money away. That was very real, and a big part of what "doing effective altruism" is. Sam/Caroline were also doing cryp…
Yes? I don't understand the point of this statement.
"When Alice appeared to donating to her local charity, we liked her, but when it turned out she was lying to us, we didn't like her anymore.
We like charity/EA/crypto, and think those are all good things. So when people are doing them, that is good. If they use that goodwill to exploit other people, we don't like that.
That is a functioning system.
Just a general statement on people commenting on this saga: Sam wasn't doing effective altruism. He was lying about doing effective altruism. It's weird to me that people talk about this as an indictment of EA...but this rings similar to me as claiming that this is an indictment of DeFi or cryptocurrency generally. Sam/Caroline weren't doing DeFi, and neither were they really doing anything related to cryptocurrency.…
He said "I'm doing EA" - the EA community said "He is amazing he is doing the best EA" What makes you think that he wasn't doing effective altruism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was he not doing EA? He was lying AND donating to causes. I'm very pro-EA but that's a weird claim.
Prominent EAers like McAskill have said (before this scandal) that EA is only valid if the money is earned honestly. They say that they never intended EA to be "steal to give".
Like it or not, the execution of EA is to make as much as possible without regard for the consequences of how you make it. The whole premise is that the ends justify the means.
What they really mean by "honestly" is in a manner that doesn't reflect poorly on EA, which is tangential to whether or not the money is earned morally.
Just a general statement on people commenting on this saga: Sam wasn't doing effective altruism. He was lying about doing effective altruism. It's weird to me that people talk about this as an indictment of EA...but this rings similar to me as claiming that this is an indictment of DeFi or cryptocurrency generally. Sam/Caroline weren't doing DeFi, and neither were they really doing anything related to cryptocurrency.…
When people use moral identifiers, like 'altruist' or 'philanthropist' , etc. they are trying to shortcut past the normal societal repetitional mechanisms to be viewed as a moral person. The people who want to take these shortcuts tend to be the least moral people. Same force that leads the immoral to be more likely loudly publicly identify with a religion. EA may be an interesting perspective, but I'm immediately wa…
The logic makes sense on the surface. For instance, if someone self-identifies himself as a philanthropist/altruist and makes an effort to make that known I'll be a bit suspicious. However, effective altruism is a movement/community, so it seems reasonable to be able to identify yourself as belonging to that community. For instance, if you're part of the YIMBY movement, and you're involved in a significant way (eg. are a leader, gives talks, and contributes financial resources), it seems reasonable for you to mention that at least occasionally. It just so happens that the community that SBF is involved with is called "effective altruism", so if you're a member of the community you get called an "effective altruist". Given what they do, I think the naming is entirely reasonable and nothing cynical is happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prominent investors, politicians, athletes, etc were associated with FTX/Sam. Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc?
Yes. Maybe with an exception for VC which is expected to make a lot of long shots bets of which few pay off.
But if I were positioned in one of the funds that invested heavily into a company that even a surface-level check would have revealed to have the controls, governance, and risk management of a lemonade stand, I would be withdrawing all my money, post-haste. You literally had one job to do.
Just a general statement on people commenting on this saga: Sam wasn't doing effective altruism. He was lying about doing effective altruism. It's weird to me that people talk about this as an indictment of EA...but this rings similar to me as claiming that this is an indictment of DeFi or cryptocurrency generally. Sam/Caroline weren't doing DeFi, and neither were they really doing anything related to cryptocurrency.…
Back during the Brazilian dictatorship, they used to say "we have to grow the cake to split it afterwards". What actually surprises me is that EA was apparently taken seriously. It does explain a lot of the fake goodness Silicon Valley is well known for.
What's the appropriate level of seriousness to take stuff like effective altruism or other charitable endeavors? Should we go full nihilist and assume that everyone is greedy and only donating for selfish reasons?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said "I'm doing EA" - the EA community said "He is amazing he is doing the best EA" What makes you think that he wasn't doing effective altruism
The part where it turned out that he was just robbing people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an indictment of EA because many prominent EA people were associated with FTX/Sam. That shows poor judgement and, on some level, EA is about smart people making judgements about long-term good. How can we trust them to make those judgements when they decide to hitch their wagon to FTX?
Prominent investors, politicians, athletes, etc were associated with FTX/Sam. Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc?
There is a bright side on this. If you didn't get funding you don't need to feel guilty.