5 ms·

"He was giving away 50 percent of his income to his preferred charities, with the biggest donations going to the Centre for Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours.

"He was giving away 50 percent of his income to his preferred charities, with the biggest donations going to the Centre for Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours. Both charities focus on building the earn-to-give idea into a movement." Yeah, that's not actually helping anyone.

renewiltord 3y ago
Do you mean those charities aren’t helping anyone? Or do you mean earning to give isn’t helping anyone?
- SrslyJosh 3y ago
  Yes.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    I understand you're not the person who was asked but this seems like an odd take regardless. Assuming it's being executed appropriately, "earn to give" seems like its effectiveness is determined primarily by which charities receive donations. It's surely not as effective as finding the highest-impact ways to donate personal time and attention but this opinion is essentially that monetary donations are ineffective for charity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give I have no idea what an "earn to give" charity even does[0]; I assume they just donate to other charities? I'd probably not bother donating to one because I can just donate to a specific charity directly, because it seems like I'm just skipping the middle-man there. Anyway, regardless of the effectiveness of earn-to-give charities, "earning to give" as a personal lifestyle choice seems reasonable, depending on the implementation. (Alternatively, make a habit of donating time at a local soup kitchen or similar.) 0: Until I read the comment above, of course: "Both charities focus on building the earn-to-give idea into a movement." I would not personally donate to this charity, presuming its ineffectiveness, for what it's worth.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      As described, the EA and EtG are self-indulging "charities". They promote the idea that their idea is the best. What I've gleaned from past HN conversations is that they spend their take on lavish parties for their donors. I seem to recall they bought a hoity-toity mansion for said parties.
    - CoffeeOnWrite 3y ago
      > "earning to give" as a personal lifestyle choice seems reasonable Among Effective Altruists, we have seen that it’s a rationalization they use to justify greed. That’s the context. So parent is saying that this rationalization isn’t helping anyone. Another way of thinking about it is, do you think the honest people living the lifestyle choice you describe, would they be out there telling people how great they are for doing it? No, they’d be focused on their work, to earn, and to give. But here they need a “movement” to validate themselves, because at some level they know they are just selfish people. (See related rationalization where highly successful founders and investors that decline to give to charity because they are “investing in their next venture that’s going to make far more money and then they’ll give more to charity” when they have more money than anyone needs and the world needs help NOW)
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > Do you mean those charities aren’t helping anyone? Or do you mean earning to give isn’t helping anyone? > Yes. Doesn't the "yes" mean that the person believes that "earning to give", separate from any specific charity, isn't helping anyone? The question explicitly separates the "movement" from the practice. It sounds to me like the practice is just... donating money? > See related rationalization where highly successful founders and investors that decline to give to charity because they are “investing in their next venture that’s going to make far more money and then they’ll give more to charity” when they have more money than anyone needs and the world needs help NOW Some people do a shit job of actually donating their money and perhaps some of those people say they "earn to give" but that doesn't mean that everybody who might claim to "earn to give" does a shit job of donating their money. But I can see that I encountered a term that carries certain baggage so I'll clarify my understanding. This is how I read the above question, and why "Yes." seems like such a strange reply. > Do you mean earn-to-give charities aren't helping anyone? Or do you mean that charitable donations aren't helping anyone? The anti-"earn to give" sentiment seems to be against certain "charity theater" (which is perfectly agreeable!) but it came off to me in this case as being against charity.
muldvarp 3y ago
Giving to "effective altruism" organizations as part of their effective "altruism" is so funny. Empowering "effective altruism" organizations because they think it's the most altruistic thing to do perfectly mirrors their fears of AI seeking world domination to produce more paper clips.
- ksherlock 3y ago
  $3.5 million of the FTX EA donation money was used to buy a Czech castle. Because that was more effective and altruistic than renting a hotel once a year for their meeting.
bambax 3y ago
It seems Michael Lewis still maintains to this day that SBF's engagement with EA was sincere. Also his parents like to pretend they are do-gooders, advancing good political causes, helping the poor with taxes and whatnot. But if any of this was true, the three of them could very easily have donated the millions they spent in his defense, and will probably keep on spending for an appeal. Not that it would have made much of a difference. Yet in this soft family profile in The New Yorker[0] we find this: > When I asked what his son’s defense would cost, Bankman said, “Substantially everything we have.” But, he added, sounding melancholic, “that’s what money is for.” Really? Money is for trying to keep fraudsters out of jail? I thought money was for making the world a better place. My bad. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/inside-sam-bankman-frieds-family-bubble https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/inside-sam-ban...
- captn3m0 3y ago
  You’re discounting the probability of SBF not going to jail and then making the world a better place. What’s the EV on that?
  - bambax 3y ago
    True enough. Past performance is not indicative of future results, and all that. Does it work both ways though?
- psunavy03 3y ago
  > Really? Money is for trying to keep fraudsters out of jail? I thought money was for making the world a better place. My bad. I in no way support or even care about SBF, but back up a second and realize that it's pretty damned callous to expect a parent of means not to at least consider paying for their child's legal defense, barring them like shooting up a school or something.
  - bambax 3y ago
    You're right, but these two have apparently been spending their whole life with a holier than thou attitude. Conferences about morals are still online with either of them lecturing the world about the right thing do do. Yet when SBF was riding high they were happy to 1/ take his millions for their own enjoyment, 2/ advise him on how to dodge taxes and 3/ help him get around regulations about political donations. And when the whole thing collapsed they entirely supported him going to trial and pleading not guilty, even if it meant throwing under the bus everyone he ever knew or worked with, spending millions for a defense that didn't have anything to stand on (anything!) and wasting everybody's time for a sorry spectacle of greed and lies. They're hypocrites is what I'm trying to say.

renewiltord 3y ago

Do you mean those charities aren’t helping anyone? Or do you mean earning to give isn’t helping anyone?

SrslyJosh 3y ago
Yes.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  I understand you're not the person who was asked but this seems like an odd take regardless. Assuming it's being executed appropriately, "earn to give" seems like its effectiveness is determined primarily by which charities receive donations. It's surely not as effective as finding the highest-impact ways to donate personal time and attention but this opinion is essentially that monetary donations are ineffective for charity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give I have no idea what an "earn to give" charity even does[0]; I assume they just donate to other charities? I'd probably not bother donating to one because I can just donate to a specific charity directly, because it seems like I'm just skipping the middle-man there. Anyway, regardless of the effectiveness of earn-to-give charities, "earning to give" as a personal lifestyle choice seems reasonable, depending on the implementation. (Alternatively, make a habit of donating time at a local soup kitchen or similar.) 0: Until I read the comment above, of course: "Both charities focus on building the earn-to-give idea into a movement." I would not personally donate to this charity, presuming its ineffectiveness, for what it's worth.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    As described, the EA and EtG are self-indulging "charities". They promote the idea that their idea is the best. What I've gleaned from past HN conversations is that they spend their take on lavish parties for their donors. I seem to recall they bought a hoity-toity mansion for said parties.
  - CoffeeOnWrite 3y ago
    > "earning to give" as a personal lifestyle choice seems reasonable Among Effective Altruists, we have seen that it’s a rationalization they use to justify greed. That’s the context. So parent is saying that this rationalization isn’t helping anyone. Another way of thinking about it is, do you think the honest people living the lifestyle choice you describe, would they be out there telling people how great they are for doing it? No, they’d be focused on their work, to earn, and to give. But here they need a “movement” to validate themselves, because at some level they know they are just selfish people. (See related rationalization where highly successful founders and investors that decline to give to charity because they are “investing in their next venture that’s going to make far more money and then they’ll give more to charity” when they have more money than anyone needs and the world needs help NOW)
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > Do you mean those charities aren’t helping anyone? Or do you mean earning to give isn’t helping anyone? > Yes. Doesn't the "yes" mean that the person believes that "earning to give", separate from any specific charity, isn't helping anyone? The question explicitly separates the "movement" from the practice. It sounds to me like the practice is just... donating money? > See related rationalization where highly successful founders and investors that decline to give to charity because they are “investing in their next venture that’s going to make far more money and then they’ll give more to charity” when they have more money than anyone needs and the world needs help NOW Some people do a shit job of actually donating their money and perhaps some of those people say they "earn to give" but that doesn't mean that everybody who might claim to "earn to give" does a shit job of donating their money. But I can see that I encountered a term that carries certain baggage so I'll clarify my understanding. This is how I read the above question, and why "Yes." seems like such a strange reply. > Do you mean earn-to-give charities aren't helping anyone? Or do you mean that charitable donations aren't helping anyone? The anti-"earn to give" sentiment seems to be against certain "charity theater" (which is perfectly agreeable!) but it came off to me in this case as being against charity.

muldvarp 3y ago

Giving to "effective altruism" organizations as part of their effective "altruism" is so funny. Empowering "effective altruism" organizations because they think it's the most altruistic thing to do perfectly mirrors their fears of AI seeking world domination to produce more paper clips.

ksherlock 3y ago
$3.5 million of the FTX EA donation money was used to buy a Czech castle. Because that was more effective and altruistic than renting a hotel once a year for their meeting.

bambax 3y ago

It seems Michael Lewis still maintains to this day that SBF's engagement with EA was sincere. Also his parents like to pretend they are do-gooders, advancing good political causes, helping the poor with taxes and whatnot. But if any of this was true, the three of them could very easily have donated the millions they spent in his defense, and will probably keep on spending for an appeal. Not that it would have made much of a difference. Yet in this soft family profile in The New Yorker[0] we find this: > When I asked what his son’s defense would cost, Bankman said, “Substantially everything we have.” But, he added, sounding melancholic, “that’s what money is for.” Really? Money is for trying to keep fraudsters out of jail? I thought money was for making the world a better place. My bad. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/inside-sam-bankman-frieds-family-bubble https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/inside-sam-ban...

captn3m0 3y ago
You’re discounting the probability of SBF not going to jail and then making the world a better place. What’s the EV on that?
- bambax 3y ago
  True enough. Past performance is not indicative of future results, and all that. Does it work both ways though?
psunavy03 3y ago
> Really? Money is for trying to keep fraudsters out of jail? I thought money was for making the world a better place. My bad. I in no way support or even care about SBF, but back up a second and realize that it's pretty damned callous to expect a parent of means not to at least consider paying for their child's legal defense, barring them like shooting up a school or something.
- bambax 3y ago
  You're right, but these two have apparently been spending their whole life with a holier than thou attitude. Conferences about morals are still online with either of them lecturing the world about the right thing do do. Yet when SBF was riding high they were happy to 1/ take his millions for their own enjoyment, 2/ advise him on how to dodge taxes and 3/ help him get around regulations about political donations. And when the whole thing collapsed they entirely supported him going to trial and pleading not guilty, even if it meant throwing under the bus everyone he ever knew or worked with, spending millions for a defense that didn't have anything to stand on (anything!) and wasting everybody's time for a sorry spectacle of greed and lies. They're hypocrites is what I'm trying to say.