5 ms·

If effective altruism is the best philosophy then anything that supports effective altruism must also be good. And anything that supports that, etc. So make su

by abnry 4y ago

If effective altruism is the best philosophy then anything that supports effective altruism must also be good. And anything that supports that, etc. So make sure to buy comfy plush pillows and foot massagers for the effective altruists so they can do their effective altruism more effectively!

tptacek 4y ago
I mean, we're joking, but we're joking on a story where they managed to justify an $18MM estate to hold events at.
jasonhansel 4y ago
And if you can make money to fund EA by starting a billion-dollar crypto Ponzi scheme, well, the ends justify the means.
- hndamien 4y ago
  It's very effective, especially if you maintain the altruistic intent.
- chickenchicken 4y ago
  I first thought this a joke and then I remembered FTX
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  There's certainly a lot of silly stuff going on in EA, but as far as I know, FTXs methods have been universally condemned within EA.
  - CaptainZapp 4y ago
    I don't think so. At least not while the money was rolling in.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      If FTX had been doing what they were widely believed to be doing, providing a place where people could trade cryptocurrencies and taking a cut on the trades, I wouldn't have any problem with that: there wouldn't have been harmful means that needed justifying. Which is why all the condemnation is coming out after we learned that they were actually doing something much much worse.
      - quickthrower2 4y ago
        Running a crypto exchange is a grey hat. It is a place for crims, money launderers, gamblers and of course there is the environmental impact of crypto to consider.
      - CaptainZapp 4y ago
        I see it a little bit like a dodgy party donor, which is very much appreciated by the party profiting from the filthy lucre being sent in their general direction. Then suddenly scandal engulfs the donor and the honchos in the profiting party are shocked! SHOCKED! I tell you. I think that's a quite good analogy to what happened here. While the money was rolling nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from. Only when that whole house of cards, built within other houses of cards collapsed did the "condemnation" start. Nobody is really interested in details how the sausage is made as long the money is rolling. Thus, any condemnation or distancing from Mr. Bankman-Fried and his business rings very, very hollow to me.
        jefftk 4y ago
        > nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from What do you mean? The public story around FTX, and what they said when you asked them, was that the money was coming from charging fees on trading, which was plausible given the level of trading and the size of their fees. That the condemnation didn't start until it turned out that SBF and FTX were actually doing other things and lying to everyone is not surprising?
        dmix 4y ago
        FTX had a pretty solid reputation and plenty of legitimate investors like the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Plenty of positive reputation signals. It's not like it was some obviously shady businessman making political donations or something. EA is shady in a lot of ways but this seems like an unrealistic guilt by association.
  - prepend 4y ago
    After he blew up and stopped paying for everything. The time to condemn was when he was running a Ponzi scheme and handing out millions.
- jefftk 4y ago
  "Ends justify the means, even when the means include significant harm" has never been within mainstream EA. For example, Will MacAskill's post on the FTX collapse includes lots of examples from his book where he said not to do this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WdeiPrwgqW2wHAxgT/a-personal-statement-on-ftx https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WdeiPrwgqW2wHAxgT/...
narrator 4y ago
We call ourselves the good guy squad. Everything we do is eventually good even if you don't see how it's good now. Any time we do something you think is bad like buying a $15 million mansion that who the heck knows what we're using it for now, it's due to someone making an honest mistake. You wouldn't criticize the good guy squad, because then you'd be part of the bad guy squad!
Yizahi 4y ago
"I only read one Book because its Good Book don't you know, and I know it's Good because a really Good Book would." (c) somehow reminded me about that song :)
dmix 4y ago
A lot of human ideas can become ridiculous when taken to a logical extreme (typically when all other competing factors at play are ignored).
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Taking things to a logical extreme is what self-described rationalists do, almost religiously.

by abnry 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

I mean, we're joking, but we're joking on a story where they managed to justify an $18MM estate to hold events at.

jasonhansel 4y ago

And if you can make money to fund EA by starting a billion-dollar crypto Ponzi scheme, well, the ends justify the means.

hndamien 4y ago
It's very effective, especially if you maintain the altruistic intent.
chickenchicken 4y ago
I first thought this a joke and then I remembered FTX
bakuninsbart 4y ago
There's certainly a lot of silly stuff going on in EA, but as far as I know, FTXs methods have been universally condemned within EA.
- CaptainZapp 4y ago
  I don't think so. At least not while the money was rolling in.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    If FTX had been doing what they were widely believed to be doing, providing a place where people could trade cryptocurrencies and taking a cut on the trades, I wouldn't have any problem with that: there wouldn't have been harmful means that needed justifying. Which is why all the condemnation is coming out after we learned that they were actually doing something much much worse.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      Running a crypto exchange is a grey hat. It is a place for crims, money launderers, gamblers and of course there is the environmental impact of crypto to consider.
    - CaptainZapp 4y ago
      I see it a little bit like a dodgy party donor, which is very much appreciated by the party profiting from the filthy lucre being sent in their general direction. Then suddenly scandal engulfs the donor and the honchos in the profiting party are shocked! SHOCKED! I tell you. I think that's a quite good analogy to what happened here. While the money was rolling nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from. Only when that whole house of cards, built within other houses of cards collapsed did the "condemnation" start. Nobody is really interested in details how the sausage is made as long the money is rolling. Thus, any condemnation or distancing from Mr. Bankman-Fried and his business rings very, very hollow to me.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        > nobody asked questions from where it's actually coming from What do you mean? The public story around FTX, and what they said when you asked them, was that the money was coming from charging fees on trading, which was plausible given the level of trading and the size of their fees. That the condemnation didn't start until it turned out that SBF and FTX were actually doing other things and lying to everyone is not surprising?
      - dmix 4y ago
        FTX had a pretty solid reputation and plenty of legitimate investors like the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Plenty of positive reputation signals. It's not like it was some obviously shady businessman making political donations or something. EA is shady in a lot of ways but this seems like an unrealistic guilt by association.
- prepend 4y ago
  After he blew up and stopped paying for everything. The time to condemn was when he was running a Ponzi scheme and handing out millions.
jefftk 4y ago
"Ends justify the means, even when the means include significant harm" has never been within mainstream EA. For example, Will MacAskill's post on the FTX collapse includes lots of examples from his book where he said not to do this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WdeiPrwgqW2wHAxgT/a-personal-statement-on-ftx https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WdeiPrwgqW2wHAxgT/...

narrator 4y ago

We call ourselves the good guy squad. Everything we do is eventually good even if you don't see how it's good now. Any time we do something you think is bad like buying a $15 million mansion that who the heck knows what we're using it for now, it's due to someone making an honest mistake. You wouldn't criticize the good guy squad, because then you'd be part of the bad guy squad!

Yizahi 4y ago

"I only read one Book because its Good Book don't you know, and I know it's Good because a really Good Book would." (c) somehow reminded me about that song :)

dmix 4y ago

A lot of human ideas can become ridiculous when taken to a logical extreme (typically when all other competing factors at play are ignored).

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Taking things to a logical extreme is what self-described rationalists do, almost religiously.