5 ms·

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 m

by slibhb 4y ago

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?

gruez 4y ago
>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? Charities in general aren't exactly known for conducting thorough due diligence on their donors. Sure, it might make sense to make sure the person you're getting money from isn't some sort of ruthless dictator or embroiled in some scandal, but "runs crypto trading firm" is a pretty plausible story.
- slibhb 4y ago
  I wasn't talking about charities specifically, I was referring to stuff like this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xafpj3on76uRDoBja/the-ftx-future-fund-team-has-resigned-1 https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xafpj3on76uRDoBja/... At least one of the people involved (MacAskill) is a big name in EA circles.
  - gruez 4y ago
    What's the argument here? That The people involved should have seen it coming, and their failure to seen it coming reflects badly on them? I think the arguments from my previous comment still apply. People in general don't do thorough due diligence on who they work with. As long as there isn't anything obviously bad about a person, it seems fairly reasonable to cooperate with someone who shares your goal and is willing to contribute resources. From what I can tell, SBF/FTX's public image was reasonably clean prior to the blow up. The wikipedia article[1] only lists some minor controversies (eg. FDIC cease and desist). This definitely isn't something like bitfinex/tether where there's a long controversy spanning years[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTX_(company)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTX_(company)#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_(cryptocurrency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_(cryptocurrency)
    - slibhb 4y ago
      The argument is really simple. To restate: Why should I trust my (or other people's) ability to act to maximize long term good when I (or other people) aren't smart enough to avoid landmines like FTX?
      - gruez 4y ago
        1. Why should you trust Newton's works (eg. theory of gravity or calculus) when he isn't smart enough to avoid landmines like the south sea bubble[1]? 2. My previous comment asserts that SBF/FTX was reasonably clean prior to the collapse. If someone seemed reasonably clean, but then it turned out that he was a Bad Person or whatever, should everyone associated with that person be chastised for not being "smart enough to avoid landmines"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood
        slibhb 4y ago
        Simpler? A premise of EA is that people can make choices that maximize the good in the long run. Events like this should make us doubt that premise. The proponents of EA can't do it. Who can? I would say: no one, and serious moral philosophies should take that into account.
        gruez 4y ago
        1. I don't think it's a premise of EA that you can predict outcomes 100% of the time. Thus the fact that SBF failed to predict something isn't some sort of fatal blow you think it is 2. Even if we accept your conclusion, what does that mean in practice? Wikipedia describes effective altruism as: >a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis". Should we not use evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible? Should we revert back to donating based on whatever makes us feel fuzzy? It's easy to dunk on something because it supposedly failed, but what's your proposed alternative?
abhv 4y ago
(1) Any theory that encourages people to suspect working directly on important local causes that are meaningful to them, but instead, seek out the highest paying jobs in order to donate to EA causes is just hiding a special kind of ponzi scheme ("get more people in to fund the good work of the current people"). (2) EA creates an excuse to act outrageously evil "for the good of the longterm"
- gruez 4y ago
  1. The underlying logic behind earning to give is sound. You flying over to Africa or whatever to do charitable activities (digging a well?) is obviously going to be less impactful than you working at some high paid white collar job and then donating the money to pay some local laborers to do the same job. 2. Contrary to what you think, there's nothing about effective altruism that requires/wants you to donate to effective altruism organizations. Yes, there are effective altruism funds that effectively collect money and donate them to the most impactful causes, but there are also sites like givewell that tells you which charities are doing the most impactful work. I don't see how the latter is ponzi-like in any way. Even the former isn't really ponzi-like unless there's high administrative overhead (ie. most of the money isn't getting disbursed to charities and is instead spent on admin expenses). 3. This whole comment feels like an attack on a strawman on effective altruism and/or earning to give. The EA people I know of definitely do not give me the impression that they're willing to commit crimes so they can divert more money to EA/charities. I'll admit that I'm not deep into EA, so it's possible that I didn't witness their secret meetings where they they do discuss this. What you're doing feels like attacking utilitarians (eg. Peter Singer or John Stuart Mill) by saying that the logical conclusion to their ideology "creates an excuse to act outrageously evil "for the good of the longterm""
  - JoeJonathan 4y ago
    But is the underlying logic behind earning to give actually sound? Because it sounds to me like ideological cover for plain old earning. It also strikes me as deliberately blind to the ethical externalities of working certain high paying jobs.
  - 4y ago
georgex7 4y ago
Prominent investors, politicians, athletes, etc were associated with FTX/Sam. Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc? ...yes? Or at the very least, qualify the brand. I've seen founders use XYZ-backed to great effect with investors, customers and even public officials. Making it clearer that Sequoia investing in a company isn't Sequoia saying it's done deep diligence is good for everyone.
- searealist 4y ago
  Yes. Maybe with an exception for VC which is expected to make a lot of long shots bets of which few pay off.
  - tenpies 4y ago
    See, in my book it's the opposite. I don't take financial advise from Tom Brady. I don't expect him - or even his money person - to do due diligence and provide me investment advice. 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.
- huevosabio 4y ago
  It's a bit of a kalman update. Many of them fully endorsed or implicitly endorsed SBF. That SBF was revealed as a fraudster should update your belief on the quality of these people, but not outright scratch them out. For example, I have severely downgraded my opinion of Sequoia.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    Sequoia invests in portfolios of companies. Your judgment of them as something to invest in should be based on overall portfolio performance, not individual outliers. Your judgement of them as as willing to invest in you, does it really matter? If they give you the highest valuation, you're going to turn it down?
wslh 4y ago
I will tell three stories: A friend of mine is part of a Mensa (top 2% IQ people) local chapter. He did that mainly for fun and no pedantic reasons. He always tells me story of the problems they have organizing basic activities and governance for the chapter... Even when all participants have a very high IQ. Beyond the validity of IQ, people do crazy things when trusted people, or in power positions give recommendations. Also by FOMO. The second story is from a friend who is a second generation finance professional, knows about the complexity of investments in general and in crypto, had crypto companies, and more but was scammed in a basic way investing in a crypto fund. The third story is about a group of business people who created successful businesses, have a WhatsApp group for recommending crypto investments: one guy recommended a DeFi project, I immediately recommended to escape from that investment because it didn't have a security audit (my field and basic due diligence) and... well the project was easily hacked.
- robswc 4y ago
  Not sure if its selection bias but I've almost only heard horror stories from Mensa. Sounds great on paper but I imagine it could also attract those looking to prove something while pushing away those that are smart but less competitive.
- hgsgm 4y ago
- hderms 4y ago
  Well replace "intelligent" with "competent" and what do you get? Should we not expect the people telling us all to give them money because we couldn't hope to make more efficient use of it to be able to exercise the critical judgement necessary to not get scammed by a blatant scam?
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> That shows poor judgement How so? The fact that people make decisions based on only what they actually know is in no way a lapse of judgement. I mean what else are they supposed to do?

by slibhb 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>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? Charities in general aren't exactly known for conducting thorough due diligence on their donors. Sure, it might make sense to make sure the person you're getting money from isn't some sort of ruthless dictator or embroiled in some scandal, but "runs crypto trading firm" is a pretty plausible story.

slibhb 4y ago
I wasn't talking about charities specifically, I was referring to stuff like this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xafpj3on76uRDoBja/the-ftx-future-fund-team-has-resigned-1 https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xafpj3on76uRDoBja/... At least one of the people involved (MacAskill) is a big name in EA circles.
- gruez 4y ago
  What's the argument here? That The people involved should have seen it coming, and their failure to seen it coming reflects badly on them? I think the arguments from my previous comment still apply. People in general don't do thorough due diligence on who they work with. As long as there isn't anything obviously bad about a person, it seems fairly reasonable to cooperate with someone who shares your goal and is willing to contribute resources. From what I can tell, SBF/FTX's public image was reasonably clean prior to the blow up. The wikipedia article[1] only lists some minor controversies (eg. FDIC cease and desist). This definitely isn't something like bitfinex/tether where there's a long controversy spanning years[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTX_(company)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTX_(company)#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_(cryptocurrency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_(cryptocurrency)
  - slibhb 4y ago
    The argument is really simple. To restate: Why should I trust my (or other people's) ability to act to maximize long term good when I (or other people) aren't smart enough to avoid landmines like FTX?
    - gruez 4y ago
      1. Why should you trust Newton's works (eg. theory of gravity or calculus) when he isn't smart enough to avoid landmines like the south sea bubble[1]? 2. My previous comment asserts that SBF/FTX was reasonably clean prior to the collapse. If someone seemed reasonably clean, but then it turned out that he was a Bad Person or whatever, should everyone associated with that person be chastised for not being "smart enough to avoid landmines"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood
      - slibhb 4y ago
        Simpler? A premise of EA is that people can make choices that maximize the good in the long run. Events like this should make us doubt that premise. The proponents of EA can't do it. Who can? I would say: no one, and serious moral philosophies should take that into account.
        gruez 4y ago
        1. I don't think it's a premise of EA that you can predict outcomes 100% of the time. Thus the fact that SBF failed to predict something isn't some sort of fatal blow you think it is 2. Even if we accept your conclusion, what does that mean in practice? Wikipedia describes effective altruism as: >a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis". Should we not use evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible? Should we revert back to donating based on whatever makes us feel fuzzy? It's easy to dunk on something because it supposedly failed, but what's your proposed alternative?

abhv 4y ago

(1) Any theory that encourages people to suspect working directly on important local causes that are meaningful to them, but instead, seek out the highest paying jobs in order to donate to EA causes is just hiding a special kind of ponzi scheme ("get more people in to fund the good work of the current people"). (2) EA creates an excuse to act outrageously evil "for the good of the longterm"

gruez 4y ago
1. The underlying logic behind earning to give is sound. You flying over to Africa or whatever to do charitable activities (digging a well?) is obviously going to be less impactful than you working at some high paid white collar job and then donating the money to pay some local laborers to do the same job. 2. Contrary to what you think, there's nothing about effective altruism that requires/wants you to donate to effective altruism organizations. Yes, there are effective altruism funds that effectively collect money and donate them to the most impactful causes, but there are also sites like givewell that tells you which charities are doing the most impactful work. I don't see how the latter is ponzi-like in any way. Even the former isn't really ponzi-like unless there's high administrative overhead (ie. most of the money isn't getting disbursed to charities and is instead spent on admin expenses). 3. This whole comment feels like an attack on a strawman on effective altruism and/or earning to give. The EA people I know of definitely do not give me the impression that they're willing to commit crimes so they can divert more money to EA/charities. I'll admit that I'm not deep into EA, so it's possible that I didn't witness their secret meetings where they they do discuss this. What you're doing feels like attacking utilitarians (eg. Peter Singer or John Stuart Mill) by saying that the logical conclusion to their ideology "creates an excuse to act outrageously evil "for the good of the longterm""
- JoeJonathan 4y ago
  But is the underlying logic behind earning to give actually sound? Because it sounds to me like ideological cover for plain old earning. It also strikes me as deliberately blind to the ethical externalities of working certain high paying jobs.
- 4y ago

georgex7 4y ago

Prominent investors, politicians, athletes, etc were associated with FTX/Sam. Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Should we lose faith in Sequoia, etc, etc, etc? ...yes? Or at the very least, qualify the brand. I've seen founders use XYZ-backed to great effect with investors, customers and even public officials. Making it clearer that Sequoia investing in a company isn't Sequoia saying it's done deep diligence is good for everyone.
searealist 4y ago
Yes. Maybe with an exception for VC which is expected to make a lot of long shots bets of which few pay off.
- tenpies 4y ago
  See, in my book it's the opposite. I don't take financial advise from Tom Brady. I don't expect him - or even his money person - to do due diligence and provide me investment advice. 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.
huevosabio 4y ago
It's a bit of a kalman update. Many of them fully endorsed or implicitly endorsed SBF. That SBF was revealed as a fraudster should update your belief on the quality of these people, but not outright scratch them out. For example, I have severely downgraded my opinion of Sequoia.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  Sequoia invests in portfolios of companies. Your judgment of them as something to invest in should be based on overall portfolio performance, not individual outliers. Your judgement of them as as willing to invest in you, does it really matter? If they give you the highest valuation, you're going to turn it down?

wslh 4y ago

I will tell three stories: A friend of mine is part of a Mensa (top 2% IQ people) local chapter. He did that mainly for fun and no pedantic reasons. He always tells me story of the problems they have organizing basic activities and governance for the chapter... Even when all participants have a very high IQ. Beyond the validity of IQ, people do crazy things when trusted people, or in power positions give recommendations. Also by FOMO. The second story is from a friend who is a second generation finance professional, knows about the complexity of investments in general and in crypto, had crypto companies, and more but was scammed in a basic way investing in a crypto fund. The third story is about a group of business people who created successful businesses, have a WhatsApp group for recommending crypto investments: one guy recommended a DeFi project, I immediately recommended to escape from that investment because it didn't have a security audit (my field and basic due diligence) and... well the project was easily hacked.

robswc 4y ago
Not sure if its selection bias but I've almost only heard horror stories from Mensa. Sounds great on paper but I imagine it could also attract those looking to prove something while pushing away those that are smart but less competitive.
hgsgm 4y ago
hderms 4y ago
Well replace "intelligent" with "competent" and what do you get? Should we not expect the people telling us all to give them money because we couldn't hope to make more efficient use of it to be able to exercise the critical judgement necessary to not get scammed by a blatant scam?

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

> That shows poor judgement How so? The fact that people make decisions based on only what they actually know is in no way a lapse of judgement. I mean what else are they supposed to do?