3 ms·

I agree that David Gerard is more bombastic and leaps to more conclusions than I would prefer. But I follow this story a little and the connections he and Amy C

by neilk 3y ago

I agree that David Gerard is more bombastic and leaps to more conclusions than I would prefer. But I follow this story a little and the connections he and Amy Castor draw here make a lot of things make more sense. The "staff psychiatrist" at FTX is real. It seemed like an insane indulgence when I read about it, but I didn't follow to the obvious conclusion, that it was to prescribe medications with a subverted doctor. And that implies that any Adderall abuse wasn't just a personal vice; FTX believed in said medications being crucial to its success as an organization. It's not hard to find "rationalist" folks who have the same ideas. Is there a perfectly straight line between Scott Alexander's writings and some alleged Adderall abuse of a particular EA advocate? I don't know, but there's probably contributing factors there. That said, your information on the "rationalist" and "effective altruist" cult is out of date. While there might be a lot of people who still cling to its earlier more modest ambitions, the core of the movement changed. It's no longer about choosing charities that are effective in the here and now, but about projecting consequences into a kind of science fiction eschatology. There are many stories online of rationalist/EA groups which descended into worship of big-brained leaders as the patriarchs of the coming galactic civilizations. Beliefs like this may have made SBF far more dangerous. One interpretation of his actions is that he justified building a massive fortune from fraud in the present, because he planned to save billions of lives from rogue AI in the future. I appreciate Gerard's framing even if it's a bit overstated. Because it kicks me out of futilely pondering "how could a smart person have done any of this?" and into "ok, this is obvious tweaker fantasy and the real question is how he bamboozled so many into thinking he was the adult in the crypto community".

epiccoleman 3y ago
> While there might be a lot of people who still cling to its earlier more modest ambitions, the core of the movement changed. I know this is true, and I'm totally willing to admit that my out-of-date impressions of the "movement" are probably coloring my resistance a bit. I've seen some of the "longtermism" stuff and it's crazy to see what was once a legimately "rational" community devolve in that manner. SBF is definitely an example of the worst of the dumb ideas associated with the movement (at least, if you take him at his word). But dammit, there's still reasonable ways to engage with these ideas, and I hate to see a perfectly good baby thrown out just because it took a shit in the bathwater. > Is there a perfectly straight line between Scott Alexander's writings and some alleged Adderall abuse of a particular EA advocate? I don't know, but there's probably contributing factors there. There might be, and there might not be. I'm sure they read the article in question. Just doesn't seem fair to me to take reasonably ... reasonable writing from Scott and then somehow lay SBF's drug abuse at his feet. I assumed the "54 billion lives" thing was a joke, and I make that assumption because I find Scott to be generally smart and reasonable. If he meant it seriously, well, no mincing - that's pretty dumb. > Beliefs like this may have made SBF far more dangerous. One interpretation of his actions is that he justified building a massive fortune from fraud in the present, because he planned to save billions of lives from rogue AI in the future. I have a really hard time buying that SBF truly thought he was some kind of hero here, but that may be my own bias. I'm somewhat reminded of the back-and-forth about Islamism that was in vogue 5-10 years ago, where folks just couldn't seem to believe that groups like ISIS actually believed all that jihad stuff. So I might be making the same kind of error. Maybe he really does see himself as some kind of AI savior - but it still feels equally reasonable that he just identified a way to convince nominally smart people to give up their money to enrich himself.
- davidgerard 3y ago
  EA absolutely means this shit. William MacAskill, who got SBF into EA, is extremely explicitly working for 10^54 future emulated humans, and not for anything so tawdry as existing humans. I wrote this up earlier in the context of SBF, with cites: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/02/06/ineffective-altruism-ftx-and-the-future-robot-apocalypse/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/02/06/ineffective-... Picture it with a South Park caption: THIS IS WHAT "EFFECTIVE ALTRUISTS" ACTUALLY BELIEVE
  - epiccoleman 3y ago
    > William MacAskill, who got SBF into EA, is extremely explicitly working for 10^54 future emulated humans This is where I betray how out of the loop I am on this, I suppose. Last I heard from MacAskill was like a decade ago on Sam Harris's podcast, where he seemed to basically just be an acolyte of Singer, making the whole "would you ruin your suit to save a drowning child" argument. Guess this is why people don't like utilitarianism, it sure lets you make some silly arguments.
- mitchellporter 3y ago
  > I assumed the "54 billion lives" thing was a joke The specific numbers are a joke; but the idea behind it is earnest - the idea that small choices made by people in the movement, might have enormous long-term consequences. e.g. see "most important century".
JohnFen 3y ago
> One interpretation of his actions is that he justified [...] That's the interpretation that SBF himself has said.

by neilk 3y ago

epiccoleman 3y ago

> While there might be a lot of people who still cling to its earlier more modest ambitions, the core of the movement changed. I know this is true, and I'm totally willing to admit that my out-of-date impressions of the "movement" are probably coloring my resistance a bit. I've seen some of the "longtermism" stuff and it's crazy to see what was once a legimately "rational" community devolve in that manner. SBF is definitely an example of the worst of the dumb ideas associated with the movement (at least, if you take him at his word). But dammit, there's still reasonable ways to engage with these ideas, and I hate to see a perfectly good baby thrown out just because it took a shit in the bathwater. > Is there a perfectly straight line between Scott Alexander's writings and some alleged Adderall abuse of a particular EA advocate? I don't know, but there's probably contributing factors there. There might be, and there might not be. I'm sure they read the article in question. Just doesn't seem fair to me to take reasonably ... reasonable writing from Scott and then somehow lay SBF's drug abuse at his feet. I assumed the "54 billion lives" thing was a joke, and I make that assumption because I find Scott to be generally smart and reasonable. If he meant it seriously, well, no mincing - that's pretty dumb. > Beliefs like this may have made SBF far more dangerous. One interpretation of his actions is that he justified building a massive fortune from fraud in the present, because he planned to save billions of lives from rogue AI in the future. I have a really hard time buying that SBF truly thought he was some kind of hero here, but that may be my own bias. I'm somewhat reminded of the back-and-forth about Islamism that was in vogue 5-10 years ago, where folks just couldn't seem to believe that groups like ISIS actually believed all that jihad stuff. So I might be making the same kind of error. Maybe he really does see himself as some kind of AI savior - but it still feels equally reasonable that he just identified a way to convince nominally smart people to give up their money to enrich himself.

davidgerard 3y ago
EA absolutely means this shit. William MacAskill, who got SBF into EA, is extremely explicitly working for 10^54 future emulated humans, and not for anything so tawdry as existing humans. I wrote this up earlier in the context of SBF, with cites: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/02/06/ineffective-altruism-ftx-and-the-future-robot-apocalypse/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2023/02/06/ineffective-... Picture it with a South Park caption: THIS IS WHAT "EFFECTIVE ALTRUISTS" ACTUALLY BELIEVE
- epiccoleman 3y ago
  > William MacAskill, who got SBF into EA, is extremely explicitly working for 10^54 future emulated humans This is where I betray how out of the loop I am on this, I suppose. Last I heard from MacAskill was like a decade ago on Sam Harris's podcast, where he seemed to basically just be an acolyte of Singer, making the whole "would you ruin your suit to save a drowning child" argument. Guess this is why people don't like utilitarianism, it sure lets you make some silly arguments.
mitchellporter 3y ago
> I assumed the "54 billion lives" thing was a joke The specific numbers are a joke; but the idea behind it is earnest - the idea that small choices made by people in the movement, might have enormous long-term consequences. e.g. see "most important century".

JohnFen 3y ago

> One interpretation of his actions is that he justified [...] That's the interpretation that SBF himself has said.