4 ms·

I'm sorry but these two points are extremely disconnected. EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF. Furthermore, although he was a p

by HPMOR 4y ago

I'm sorry but these two points are extremely disconnected. EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF. Furthermore, although he was a prime donor to EA, I don't think his involvement with it necessarily discredits them.

ryanobjc 4y ago
He’s one of EA highest profiles adherents. EA style thinking permeates SBF. This is the world EAs want - the one they’ve been advocating for a long time. It’s just in this iteration it failed. If the chance of success was higher than X% vs the risk of failing, it was all worth it. That’s the kind of morally bankrupt philosophy EA pushes.
moistly 4y ago
> EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF. It had bearing on the ethical/moral decisions he has been making. EA has allowed him to justify doing blatantly illegal acts.
- smk_ 4y ago
  It’s more likely he tried to cover up massive Alameda losses due to all the usual reasons people turn to illegal acts: shame, myopia, gambling addiction. One core EA principle is integrity. If he was actually “EA”, this wouldn’t have happened the way it did.
  - moistly 4y ago
    That’s no true Scotsman.
astrange 4y ago
Doesn’t discredit them but it does bankrupt them. What does discredit them is them claiming “we’re going to go on making charity effective and rational” as if everyone else who works at a nonprofit makes decisions with an Ouija board.
wmf 4y ago
There's a Twitter thread where SBF said he's willing to take unlimited risk, far beyond what is theoretically optimal, because it's for the good of humanity.
- ChainOfFools 4y ago
  easy to say when youre taking on that unlimited risk using other people's - err, humanity's - money. No wonder SBF went hard into the social capital accumulation game almost immediately, buying off politicians and grandiose charitywashing gestures. His window to establish a network of elite string pullers was short and closing fast.

by HPMOR 4y ago

ryanobjc 4y ago

He’s one of EA highest profiles adherents. EA style thinking permeates SBF. This is the world EAs want - the one they’ve been advocating for a long time. It’s just in this iteration it failed. If the chance of success was higher than X% vs the risk of failing, it was all worth it. That’s the kind of morally bankrupt philosophy EA pushes.

moistly 4y ago

> EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF. It had bearing on the ethical/moral decisions he has been making. EA has allowed him to justify doing blatantly illegal acts.

smk_ 4y ago
It’s more likely he tried to cover up massive Alameda losses due to all the usual reasons people turn to illegal acts: shame, myopia, gambling addiction. One core EA principle is integrity. If he was actually “EA”, this wouldn’t have happened the way it did.
- moistly 4y ago
  That’s no true Scotsman.

astrange 4y ago

Doesn’t discredit them but it does bankrupt them. What does discredit them is them claiming “we’re going to go on making charity effective and rational” as if everyone else who works at a nonprofit makes decisions with an Ouija board.

wmf 4y ago

There's a Twitter thread where SBF said he's willing to take unlimited risk, far beyond what is theoretically optimal, because it's for the good of humanity.

ChainOfFools 4y ago
easy to say when youre taking on that unlimited risk using other people's - err, humanity's - money. No wonder SBF went hard into the social capital accumulation game almost immediately, buying off politicians and grandiose charitywashing gestures. His window to establish a network of elite string pullers was short and closing fast.