5 ms·

SBF is monumentally stupid for sending these messages. Straight up admitting that any "ethics" was for reputation only. And not only that, but saying that the m

by alexb_ 4y ago

SBF is monumentally stupid for sending these messages. Straight up admitting that any "ethics" was for reputation only. And not only that, but saying that the mistake was not doubling down again.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thundergolfer 4y ago
Yeah after the NYT interview I'm a bit shocked at how bad these messages look. He looks stupid, brazen, delusional, and lacking in compassion. If his texts are normally similar to this, how did anyone serious think this guy was brilliant?
- fnimick 4y ago
  > how did anyone serious think this guy was brilliant? He made a lot of money by bucking norms. Hacker news of all places should recognize that people are drawn to those who project an appearance of improbable success through skill despite a lack of underlying competence (see also: Elon Musk)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- s_dev 4y ago
  Maybe I'm out of the loop but I'd never heard of him til the FTX implosion.
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    I had, once, in a HN comment a couple of months ago. It said that he was lobbying on some political race, which is something he was doing because he believed in "Effective Altruism". This was presented as a good thing, as though billionaires giving money to politicians was a novel idea. I guess this is the type of person who found him worthy of mention.
  - marmakoide 4y ago
    I saw parts of an interview where he openly states,in substance, that a Ponzi scheme is a valid investment, the new way of doing things. I was puzzled and took a mental note to check on how he fares I once in a while. I had no idea the sums involved were this big, and the operation this much amateurish.
gedy 4y ago
Given the money at stake, I'd be suspicious of trusting an interview only over Twitter chat. But he very well could be totally stupid too.
- shaldengeki 4y ago
  As noted in the article, the reporter confirmed out-of-band via email the day afterwards.
eddsh1994 4y ago
I wonder if it's an attempt to disassociate himself with EA. The general consensus on EA forums is anger and shame at how generally good ideas like treating charitable donations as an investment based on impact have been essentially hijacked and longtermism pushed front and center too.
- ritonlajoie 4y ago
  what is 'EA forums' ?
  - pr337h4m 4y ago
    https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/ https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/
  - eddsh1994 4y ago
    https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/ https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/ There’s a few, like less wrong, but this is the main one to many
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      Wait so less wrong is rooted in effective altruism? Ugh.
      - eddsh1994 4y ago
        It’s intertwined but not totally. There are non-EA members of Less Wrong.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

by alexb_ 4y ago

SBF is monumentally stupid for sending these messages. Straight up admitting that any "ethics" was for reputation only. And not only that, but saying that the mistake was not doubling down again.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

thundergolfer 4y ago

Yeah after the NYT interview I'm a bit shocked at how bad these messages look. He looks stupid, brazen, delusional, and lacking in compassion. If his texts are normally similar to this, how did anyone serious think this guy was brilliant?

fnimick 4y ago
> how did anyone serious think this guy was brilliant? He made a lot of money by bucking norms. Hacker news of all places should recognize that people are drawn to those who project an appearance of improbable success through skill despite a lack of underlying competence (see also: Elon Musk)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
s_dev 4y ago
Maybe I'm out of the loop but I'd never heard of him til the FTX implosion.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  I had, once, in a HN comment a couple of months ago. It said that he was lobbying on some political race, which is something he was doing because he believed in "Effective Altruism". This was presented as a good thing, as though billionaires giving money to politicians was a novel idea. I guess this is the type of person who found him worthy of mention.
- marmakoide 4y ago
  I saw parts of an interview where he openly states,in substance, that a Ponzi scheme is a valid investment, the new way of doing things. I was puzzled and took a mental note to check on how he fares I once in a while. I had no idea the sums involved were this big, and the operation this much amateurish.

gedy 4y ago

Given the money at stake, I'd be suspicious of trusting an interview only over Twitter chat. But he very well could be totally stupid too.

shaldengeki 4y ago
As noted in the article, the reporter confirmed out-of-band via email the day afterwards.

eddsh1994 4y ago

I wonder if it's an attempt to disassociate himself with EA. The general consensus on EA forums is anger and shame at how generally good ideas like treating charitable donations as an investment based on impact have been essentially hijacked and longtermism pushed front and center too.

ritonlajoie 4y ago
what is 'EA forums' ?
- pr337h4m 4y ago
  https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/ https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/
- eddsh1994 4y ago
  https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/ https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/ There’s a few, like less wrong, but this is the main one to many
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    Wait so less wrong is rooted in effective altruism? Ugh.
    - eddsh1994 4y ago
      It’s intertwined but not totally. There are non-EA members of Less Wrong.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]