11 ms·

> Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, a

> Effective altruism is 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 I'm not sure how anyone could argue that what SBF was doing fits it any way with that. He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, so clearly the whole "Effective altruism" was just a image he was trying to present, while acting completely against it in private.

px43 3y ago
It's often used as an excuse justifying short term greed and deception for the sake of theoretical long term benefits.
Sebb767 3y ago
> I'm not sure how anyone could argue that what SBF was doing fits it any way with that. That's pretty easy, actually. He seems to see himself as some kind of Robin Hood-esque figure, taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor (or, more specifically, distributing the money of the rich to the places where its most effective). The argument is about whether EA naturally leads to this "the ends superseed the means"-type of actions, which is what the article argues.
- tw04 3y ago
  How is he defining "rich" - because AFAIK his algorithm didn't just take money from the whales to give to Alameda - and when things are settled, it's almost assuredly the whales that will get paid out first. So he's almost assuredly taking from the middle-class-at-best to give to his own personal pet projects.
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    > So he's almost assuredly taking from the middle-class-at-best to give to his own personal pet projects. He's still (for the largest part) taking investment money from the top 1% or at least top 10% of the world and is (in his opinion) putting it to work saving actual lives. I don't think it's that hard to see how he could justify his actions to himself. > and when things are settled, it's almost assuredly the whales that will get paid out first. This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm pretty sure that "how is the remaining money re-distributed once my company implodes" didn't make it into his calculations. Also, where the remaining funds go is pretty irrelevant to the calculation anyway, as it's not going to be funneled towards EA causes.
- namdnay 3y ago
  If I remember the stories correctly, Robin hood lived in the forest with his merry men. Not in a palace in the bahamas :)
  - username332211 3y ago
    I struggle to think of the head of every political regime in the last century who based his government on stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor, who didn't end up with a palace. Well, apart from the ones that got killed in military coups and such. And I doubt the idea that they were all liars that never believed in what they preached would withstand scrutiny. Suppose, your ethics are unworkable or irrational and you are unwilling to question them. If you think about it, by necessity, you must become more amoral as time goes by. At the very least the luxury of a palace probably helps silence one's moral instincts.
  - SamFold 3y ago
    Also, in the original stories, Robin actually was more like rob from the Church and give to the gentry. He was very friendly with the "right sort" of noblemen, he just really didn't like rich priests from the church. So we (in our modern age) have kind of perverted the idea of Robin Hood to fit our times but he never really was some kind of hero for the poor. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gest_of_Robyn_Hode#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gest_of_Robyn_Hode#Summary
- btown 3y ago
  I'm not even sure if he saw himself as redistributing money vs. creating value from scratch, from the productivity increases that cryptocurrency would usher in when it became mainstream - and if he was the one to not "re-distribute," but simply distribute, some portion of those newfound gains, why, he would be the best possible steward because of his EA ideals! But, of course, what he didn't do was get the consent of his depositors to have their deposits rerouted and gambled with in the way that he did. Even if he had been right, if he had been able to ride the wave and cryptocurrency became everything he thought it could be - his actions were legally found to be fraudulent. In terms of a broader pattern with regards to consent and power dynamics, there's another inescapable data point of the EA movement's problems with internally handling sexual harassment allegations - I won't link to the time.com article on the EA movement, as it horrifyingly orientalizes and conflates polyamory with harassment, but assuming that the article's quotes from primary sources are accurate, it suggests a culture of protection for those who would abuse their power. I think that the EA community needs to grapple with the notion that just because one believes a certain pathway to be optimal, it does not absolve them of the need to gather explicit consent, given freely, with information discrepancies and power dynamics taken into account, from those who would be impacted. Optimization under constraints can still be optimization, and people's freedom to choose the extent to which they participate is the most important constraint of all.
  - landemva 3y ago
    Sam wasn't really a crypto guy. He knew some things about finance and trading, and set up a prop shop offshore.
  - morelisp 3y ago
    > it horrifyingly orientalizes and conflates polyamory with harassment I mean, Caroline Ellison herself is the one who said her relationship goals (which was to a large degree coterminous with company structure) was "best characterized as something like 'imperial Chinese harem'" no? It's not Time "orientalizing", it's one particular fucked up polycule. Which also happened to be one of the highest visibility ones in "the movement" (whether you take that as EA, crypto, Rationalism, Bay Area rich kid libertinism, whatever). Polyamory takes on a distinctly awful flavor when imported into EA (and before that Rationalist, which I would assume is where it reached EA from) communities. I would assume abuse and codependence before healthy relationships in these cases, because frankly I see 99% of this movement is at best emotionally immature.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > He seems to see himself as some kind of Robin Hood-esque figure, taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor Well, and to himself. At one point, didn't he own three private jets?
- panarky 3y ago
  > taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor There is zero evidence that this was his intent. There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people. The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - letmeinhere 3y ago
    > There is zero evidence that [stealing] was his intent. The federal jury seems to have disagreed, finding him guilty on all charges, all of which require intent. As do his co-conspirators who testified to their fraud. This is such a bizarre take; this was one of the most lopsided financial prosecutions of all time and you're out here saying it had no foundation in fact at all?
    - anamexis 3y ago
      Your replacement in brackets is completely different than what the parent said. “And distributing it to the poor” was a key part of what they were responding to.
      - letmeinhere 3y ago
        The last sentence is literally "The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich". The commenter was very clearly disputing SBF's _intent_ to steal. _You_ may doubt his good intentions for that theft (quite reasonably), but that's not the point that we are debating.
        letmeinhere 3y ago
        Not only did panarky clearly dispute intent to steal, they specifically said that there's a lot of evidence of intent to help people: "There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people." Juxtaposed with zero evidence of intent to steal. I'm sorry, but I believe you have misread the thread completely.
- em-bee 3y ago
  the problem seems twofold. on the one hand there is a seemingly objective definition of what Effective Altruism is supposed to be. that definition is one that i would like to subscribe to as well. on the other hand it appears that the idea of EA was popularized by someone whose actions didn't actually fit the definition which discredits the whole movement. that's the first problem. the second problem is that we tend to redefine what things are based on the actions of those that promote them. it's the same thing that happens with religions. a lot of people now and in the past did things in the name of those religions that were a discredit to them. the difficulty is to keep these things apart. the consequence for me is that i can not associate myself with things like EA or blockchain development, because in the eye of the public now these do more harm than good. and for the same reason many not only leave their particular religion but disassociate themselves from the concept of religion itself.
  - nativeit 3y ago
    As near as I can tell, “Effective Altruism” is just the latest lame label for what is essentially “trickle down economics”, where some overly entitled individuals condescendingly try to justify some notion that they know how to spend money better than the plebs, so they must clearly be the obvious beneficiaries of any/all proceeds of any given transaction. It isn’t new, and it certainly isn’t helpful. It’s cynical and needs to be called what it is—a framework for extending and perpetuating income inequality while making those who benefit the most feel good about themselves.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      i don't see the connection. trickle down economics is about reducing taxes for high earners so that they can spend the money on things that will eventually benefit lower earners. that has nothing to do with effective altruism as far as i can tell. at best i can see that high earners claim effective altruism for themselves, and are discrediting it with their actions, just like i said. if you talk to people promoting effective altruism on the ground (which i had the opportunity to do recently) then you get a different picture.
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
This leads into a whole "theory vs practice" argument that shows up whenever people start talking about communism. If anybody doing Effective Altruism in the real world fails, we are told that they were not doing EA correctly, and it's simply unfortunate that nobody's done it correctly yet. Thus the movement itself can never be discredited by mere experimental evidence.
_yb2s 3y ago
His actions made perfect sense from his utilitarian Effective Altruist worldview. He was stealing from rich people, and giving the money to what he saw as "worthy causes." He was pretty open even before the collapse about how he decided to get as rich as possible, as fast as possible, at all costs, as long as (in his own moral calculus) the net benefits were positive. EAs are arguably a 'cult' obsessed with AI risk, which they mostly believe will end the world in the next few years. So to them, that pretty much justifies anything that could help mitigate that risk. He would see it as immoral not to become a criminal in order to fund AI risk research. Personally, I think these AI risk concerns are legitimate, but I don't agree with these methods.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jaidhyani 3y ago
  > His actions made perfect sense from his utilitarian Effective Altruist worldview. They don't. Everyone in EA (AFAICT) has been pretty clear about this. Lying and undermining trust and institutions does tremendous lasting harm. I am also tired of "people are very concerned about X and think that it's important, so they're basically a cult".
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    I've been involved (or at least following) the rationalist and EA communities since the beginning. I call it a cult somewhat tongue in cheek, but it certainly has a lot more cult-like aspects beyond just "pretty concerned about AI risk." I mean, they have a charismatic leader whose unusual ideas about everything from AI risk to sexuality are more or less carbon copied, and practiced in group houses, etc. in some pretty creepy ways. Literally anyone from the outside would easily be convinced they were pretty much your standard apocalyptic sex cult, just from accurately describing it. I don't really care if people on EA forums don't all agree with SBF, but his type of thinking is standard if you use utilitarianism to make decisions in the real world, and it leads to some pretty horrific stuff. Consequentialism / utilitarianism are widely accepted in EA, and if you take that to the extreme, it can justify things like this.
dheera 3y ago
Is it just me or do a whole lot of EA people just love to keep talking but never do anything actually altruistic? I mean I get the idea of trying to optimize the value of charitable donations. But donating something is infinitely better than chatting all day and donating nothing. Even on a small scale, the number of times I've seen non-EA people do something nice is way, way more than the number of times I've seen an EA person come out of their "circle" and do something nice.
- mplewis 3y ago
  This is how EA works. It wouldn’t be maximally effective to donate the money now, would it? Compounding interest says you should hoard it until your dying day and only then invest in a charitable cause.
  - verteu 3y ago
    No, you'd need to account for several things (curing someone of malaria has compounding returns, high-impact opportunities may dry up, etc). There's substantial discussion: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7uJcBNZhinomKtH9p/giving-now-vs-later-a-summary https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7uJcBNZhinomKtH9p/... I do agree that utilitarianism provides too much room for mental gymnastics which bad actors can use to feign benevolence.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    This is the smartest thing for the 99% though. While we're alive, we need the money now. Donate your estate once you're dead. It has a side benefit of discouraging accelerated inheritance schemes.
    - dheera 3y ago
      What if you have children? You could say they "need the money now" more than you do, and never donate. You could even write a recursive will that defines N=5, and requires your daughter or son, as a condition of inheriting the money, (a) never donate it during their lifetime and (b) compound it for a lifetime in S&P500 (c) write their own will with the exact same text with the only change being N = N-1 (d) donation is only allowed if you are N=0, and only under agreeing to fulfill (a), (b), and (c), do you even get to have the money.
dclowd9901 3y ago
Does that change the point? Even if not in earnest, he was able to deflect suspicion wearing a cloak of EA. That, in and of itself, is a problem. Nothing is above reproach, no matter how pious or nerdy.
tempsy 3y ago
His brother was heading some “Guarding against pandemics” non-profit that he was involved with. I believe there was one California proposition they were heavily funding related to it. I don’t know if it was started in earnest or if there was some ulterior motive.
- reactordev 3y ago
  Good doesn’t cancel out the bad
  - kodapoda 3y ago
    Even further: debatable unproven good doesn't cancel out the immediate unmistakable bad. Sponsoring a regulation with stolen money is also self-serving (political influence), plus we don't have any data available to say that the regulation resulted in any societal good. We do know, though, that the stolen money negatively affected millions of people.
    - reactordev 3y ago
      Equally: indentured servitude in restitution isn't a valid rehabilitation strategy. It doesn't deter nor contract ones thinking to doing criminal activities. The only thing we can do it weigh punishment to severity of the crimes. SBF will soon find out what value that is.
  - mbrumlow 3y ago
    This sounded like more bad actually.
    - reactordev 3y ago
      Yes but the article talked about EA and how giving to causes blindly ignoring means is kinda the M.O. of it all. So "good" (giving) doesn't cancel out the "bad" (robbing customer funds).
      - 3y ago
ajross 3y ago
> He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, so clearly the whole "Effective altruism" was just a image he was trying to present, while acting completely against it in private. I don't think that's right. In his head, it wasn't fraud. He was moving money around to backstop losses, sure, and OK, technically it wasn't his. But it was all going to be OK in the end and no one would know. No one was going to lose any money, so no fraud. QED. In the real world, criminals don't think they're criminals. Everyone's got a good reason for doing what they do.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  I can only buy this logic if one of the following is true: 1) SBF is an crook 2) SBF is an idiot
  - TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
    I agree. Given his professional history I believe the first option is likely. At the same time, he clearly isn’t that smart. He left an enormous trail of evidence in his wake, and his fraud wasn’t even that sophisticated.
    - tickerticker 3y ago
      He was smart enough to get into MIT. Probably not as smart as Goethe.
- notahacker 3y ago
  I think the key thing is that everything he's ever said and done (including the stuff that harmed only Sam Bankman Fried as well as the stuff that benefited him and the stuff that was illegal and lost his customers money) screams gambling addict. Its debatable whether the EA stuff was rationalisation of those impulses or reputation laundering, but he was quite explicit about the fact that his idea of "saving humanity" involved making massive financial bets whilst dismissing the idea of hedging against the downsides even in fawning interviews published by VCs that had invested in him. In that respect, his public image was entirely in keeping with the sort of person that wouldn't be bothered by a few regulations about customer funds, because what if he could double them by ignoring the regulation?...
CyberDildonics 3y ago
It's actually very common for companies doing terrible things like fraud, environmental damage, bait and switches, patent abuse etc. to lean hard on promoting social work they're doing. This is so common that short sellers like Kyle Bass actually look for it as an additional red flag when hunting down fraudulent companies.
FireBeyond 3y ago
I think anything SBF did to benefit others was a byproduct or side effect of what he was actually doing, enriching/empowering himself, like you say. Or, at best, a hedge in the form of insurance against bad PR.
tmaly 3y ago
He did give a lot of money, just not in a way that fit the image of EA.
mc32 3y ago
The argument is akin to saying bank robbery is a feature not a big when the thief donates his or her takes to charities of soup kitchens or what have you. It’s a ridiculous high school level argument.
aeternum 3y ago
Yes, he admitted multiple times that it was all just an act for public perception. Can't get much more clear than this: KP: you were really good at talking about ethics, for someone who kind of saw it all as a game with winners and losers SBF: ya SBF: hehe SBF: I had to be SBF: it's what reputations are made of, to some extent SBF: I feel bad for those who get f***** by it SBF: by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths [sic] and so everyone likes us
- runjake 3y ago
  Apparent source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
- WD40forRust 3y ago
  Based.
- mynegation 3y ago
  That’s what happens if one tries and mispronounces “shibboleth”.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    They lose their head? (:
- QuantumGood 3y ago
  Fraud was certainly a feature of the industry as a whole, e.g. https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
  - colpabar 3y ago
    I think this attitude goes way beyond just crypto/web3. It seems like corporate greed and environmental destruction is a-ok as long as the company tweets in support of woke stuff.
injeolmi_love 3y ago
Most EA adherents focus on process not outcomes. So from an EA position, the fraud outcome doesn’t matter. Imagine if SBF gambles paid off they might say, and that potential outcome must be probablistically weighed against the negative outcome. Since crypto in most EA is viewed as a sin industry, the negative impact is minor relative to the positive impact of SBF political and charity donations, so even a slim chance of success should be taken. However EA logic is wrong because utilitarianism is wrong. It doesn’t matter whether stealing and fraud create good outcomes or not. Theft and fraud are evil in themselves irrespective of outcomes. To put it in an extreme sense, even if it would save the planet you should still not steal nor defraud others. The fact that some actions are in essence evil is enshrined in the legal system, is commonly accepted, and philosophically sound.
- dirtyv 3y ago
  Theft or fraud would definitely be preferable to the loss of the planet. Utilitarianism aside, sometimes doing the wrong thing actually is the better thing to do. Anyone who helped slaves escape via the Underground Railroad or smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany would not be considered evil for their actions, and those could easily be construed as theft (in a gross way) or fraud.
  - injeolmi_love 3y ago
    Because humans have a natural right to movement, helping slaves is not theft even if an evil social institution falsely claims it is theft. Similarly regarding eugenics, humans have a natural right to reproduce and to live, so someone assisting someone to escape that situation is in the right no matter what society they live in. Extreme moral relativism like you’re mentioning here is just as wrong as utilitarianism. It’s not preferable to steal than to lose the planet. Some things really are worse than death, and committing an evil action is wrong no matter what the justification the evildoer makes.
    - dirtyv 3y ago
      Evil is not a 100% settled matter. For example, some people believe that saving another person's life if you can is a moral obligation and to not do so would be an evil act. I gather from your refusal to even consider stealing something in order to save the planet you are in the other camp.
mplewis 3y ago
What would be the difference between SBF being an effective altruist and doing fraud to hoard wealth until his dying day when he would turn it all into a public good, and saying he was and doing everything up until the last step? The fraud is still illegal. He would still have gone to jail.
jstarfish 3y ago
> I'm not sure how anyone could argue that what SBF was doing fits it any way with that. He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, EA strikes me as the same sort of ambiguous slime as "breast cancer awareness." You read the words and think hey, that sounds right. Benefit others as efficiently as possible. Guy's a Robin Hood type, stealing from the rich to benefit others. Good for you, buddy. Godspeed. Except you look at what he's actually doing and see he's not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. He's stealing from the foolish and giving to "others," who turn out to be his friends and associates. $500m to Anthropic? $5b for Twitter? This shit isn't charity. It's kleptocracy masquerading as charity. I can't see his charitable causes as anything more than an ephemeral funds-parking scheme storing funds in a chain of IOUs.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
SBF cannot even manage "ineffective" altruism. He puts other people through hell without a hint of empathy. How would anyone expect he could do "effective" altruism. In his own words, he "fucked up". But he is not sorry, he offers no apology, he's "not guilty". He is a compulsive liar. It will be interesting how he fares in prison. Martin Shkrelli wants to be his friend. Perhaps they can be pen pals. Maybe he'll get special treatment or early release. Even if SBF was following the EA playbook to the letter, it did not work. The attempt was ineffective. He failed. Michael Lewis shared some SBF story where the scenario (the bet) presented to SBF was a chance to make the world better or, if it failed, the entire world would be destroyed. SBF allegedly would take that bet. All or nothing. Where have we seen this type of thinking before.
- omnimus 3y ago
  Somehow our society puts the non-alturistic people into positions which have most impact. I guess the ineffective alturist knows its almost impossible to get to such position without wronging others. And its the ruthless fool with savior complex that puts himself above others “to save them”.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Ellison also shared the coin flip story on the stand, something like "heads the world is twice as good, tails the world is destroyed."

px43 3y ago

It's often used as an excuse justifying short term greed and deception for the sake of theoretical long term benefits.

Sebb767 3y ago

> I'm not sure how anyone could argue that what SBF was doing fits it any way with that. That's pretty easy, actually. He seems to see himself as some kind of Robin Hood-esque figure, taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor (or, more specifically, distributing the money of the rich to the places where its most effective). The argument is about whether EA naturally leads to this "the ends superseed the means"-type of actions, which is what the article argues.

tw04 3y ago
How is he defining "rich" - because AFAIK his algorithm didn't just take money from the whales to give to Alameda - and when things are settled, it's almost assuredly the whales that will get paid out first. So he's almost assuredly taking from the middle-class-at-best to give to his own personal pet projects.
- Sebb767 3y ago
  > So he's almost assuredly taking from the middle-class-at-best to give to his own personal pet projects. He's still (for the largest part) taking investment money from the top 1% or at least top 10% of the world and is (in his opinion) putting it to work saving actual lives. I don't think it's that hard to see how he could justify his actions to himself. > and when things are settled, it's almost assuredly the whales that will get paid out first. This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm pretty sure that "how is the remaining money re-distributed once my company implodes" didn't make it into his calculations. Also, where the remaining funds go is pretty irrelevant to the calculation anyway, as it's not going to be funneled towards EA causes.
namdnay 3y ago
If I remember the stories correctly, Robin hood lived in the forest with his merry men. Not in a palace in the bahamas :)
- username332211 3y ago
  I struggle to think of the head of every political regime in the last century who based his government on stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor, who didn't end up with a palace. Well, apart from the ones that got killed in military coups and such. And I doubt the idea that they were all liars that never believed in what they preached would withstand scrutiny. Suppose, your ethics are unworkable or irrational and you are unwilling to question them. If you think about it, by necessity, you must become more amoral as time goes by. At the very least the luxury of a palace probably helps silence one's moral instincts.
- SamFold 3y ago
  Also, in the original stories, Robin actually was more like rob from the Church and give to the gentry. He was very friendly with the "right sort" of noblemen, he just really didn't like rich priests from the church. So we (in our modern age) have kind of perverted the idea of Robin Hood to fit our times but he never really was some kind of hero for the poor. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gest_of_Robyn_Hode#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gest_of_Robyn_Hode#Summary
btown 3y ago
I'm not even sure if he saw himself as redistributing money vs. creating value from scratch, from the productivity increases that cryptocurrency would usher in when it became mainstream - and if he was the one to not "re-distribute," but simply distribute, some portion of those newfound gains, why, he would be the best possible steward because of his EA ideals! But, of course, what he didn't do was get the consent of his depositors to have their deposits rerouted and gambled with in the way that he did. Even if he had been right, if he had been able to ride the wave and cryptocurrency became everything he thought it could be - his actions were legally found to be fraudulent. In terms of a broader pattern with regards to consent and power dynamics, there's another inescapable data point of the EA movement's problems with internally handling sexual harassment allegations - I won't link to the time.com article on the EA movement, as it horrifyingly orientalizes and conflates polyamory with harassment, but assuming that the article's quotes from primary sources are accurate, it suggests a culture of protection for those who would abuse their power. I think that the EA community needs to grapple with the notion that just because one believes a certain pathway to be optimal, it does not absolve them of the need to gather explicit consent, given freely, with information discrepancies and power dynamics taken into account, from those who would be impacted. Optimization under constraints can still be optimization, and people's freedom to choose the extent to which they participate is the most important constraint of all.
- landemva 3y ago
  Sam wasn't really a crypto guy. He knew some things about finance and trading, and set up a prop shop offshore.
- morelisp 3y ago
  > it horrifyingly orientalizes and conflates polyamory with harassment I mean, Caroline Ellison herself is the one who said her relationship goals (which was to a large degree coterminous with company structure) was "best characterized as something like 'imperial Chinese harem'" no? It's not Time "orientalizing", it's one particular fucked up polycule. Which also happened to be one of the highest visibility ones in "the movement" (whether you take that as EA, crypto, Rationalism, Bay Area rich kid libertinism, whatever). Polyamory takes on a distinctly awful flavor when imported into EA (and before that Rationalist, which I would assume is where it reached EA from) communities. I would assume abuse and codependence before healthy relationships in these cases, because frankly I see 99% of this movement is at best emotionally immature.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> He seems to see himself as some kind of Robin Hood-esque figure, taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor Well, and to himself. At one point, didn't he own three private jets?
panarky 3y ago
> taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor There is zero evidence that this was his intent. There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people. The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- letmeinhere 3y ago
  > There is zero evidence that [stealing] was his intent. The federal jury seems to have disagreed, finding him guilty on all charges, all of which require intent. As do his co-conspirators who testified to their fraud. This is such a bizarre take; this was one of the most lopsided financial prosecutions of all time and you're out here saying it had no foundation in fact at all?
  - anamexis 3y ago
    Your replacement in brackets is completely different than what the parent said. “And distributing it to the poor” was a key part of what they were responding to.
    - letmeinhere 3y ago
      The last sentence is literally "The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich". The commenter was very clearly disputing SBF's _intent_ to steal. _You_ may doubt his good intentions for that theft (quite reasonably), but that's not the point that we are debating.
      - letmeinhere 3y ago
        Not only did panarky clearly dispute intent to steal, they specifically said that there's a lot of evidence of intent to help people: "There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people." Juxtaposed with zero evidence of intent to steal. I'm sorry, but I believe you have misread the thread completely.
em-bee 3y ago
the problem seems twofold. on the one hand there is a seemingly objective definition of what Effective Altruism is supposed to be. that definition is one that i would like to subscribe to as well. on the other hand it appears that the idea of EA was popularized by someone whose actions didn't actually fit the definition which discredits the whole movement. that's the first problem. the second problem is that we tend to redefine what things are based on the actions of those that promote them. it's the same thing that happens with religions. a lot of people now and in the past did things in the name of those religions that were a discredit to them. the difficulty is to keep these things apart. the consequence for me is that i can not associate myself with things like EA or blockchain development, because in the eye of the public now these do more harm than good. and for the same reason many not only leave their particular religion but disassociate themselves from the concept of religion itself.
- nativeit 3y ago
  As near as I can tell, “Effective Altruism” is just the latest lame label for what is essentially “trickle down economics”, where some overly entitled individuals condescendingly try to justify some notion that they know how to spend money better than the plebs, so they must clearly be the obvious beneficiaries of any/all proceeds of any given transaction. It isn’t new, and it certainly isn’t helpful. It’s cynical and needs to be called what it is—a framework for extending and perpetuating income inequality while making those who benefit the most feel good about themselves.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    i don't see the connection. trickle down economics is about reducing taxes for high earners so that they can spend the money on things that will eventually benefit lower earners. that has nothing to do with effective altruism as far as i can tell. at best i can see that high earners claim effective altruism for themselves, and are discrediting it with their actions, just like i said. if you talk to people promoting effective altruism on the ground (which i had the opportunity to do recently) then you get a different picture.

CobrastanJorji 3y ago

This leads into a whole "theory vs practice" argument that shows up whenever people start talking about communism. If anybody doing Effective Altruism in the real world fails, we are told that they were not doing EA correctly, and it's simply unfortunate that nobody's done it correctly yet. Thus the movement itself can never be discredited by mere experimental evidence.

_yb2s 3y ago

His actions made perfect sense from his utilitarian Effective Altruist worldview. He was stealing from rich people, and giving the money to what he saw as "worthy causes." He was pretty open even before the collapse about how he decided to get as rich as possible, as fast as possible, at all costs, as long as (in his own moral calculus) the net benefits were positive. EAs are arguably a 'cult' obsessed with AI risk, which they mostly believe will end the world in the next few years. So to them, that pretty much justifies anything that could help mitigate that risk. He would see it as immoral not to become a criminal in order to fund AI risk research. Personally, I think these AI risk concerns are legitimate, but I don't agree with these methods.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jaidhyani 3y ago
> His actions made perfect sense from his utilitarian Effective Altruist worldview. They don't. Everyone in EA (AFAICT) has been pretty clear about this. Lying and undermining trust and institutions does tremendous lasting harm. I am also tired of "people are very concerned about X and think that it's important, so they're basically a cult".
- _yb2s 3y ago
  I've been involved (or at least following) the rationalist and EA communities since the beginning. I call it a cult somewhat tongue in cheek, but it certainly has a lot more cult-like aspects beyond just "pretty concerned about AI risk." I mean, they have a charismatic leader whose unusual ideas about everything from AI risk to sexuality are more or less carbon copied, and practiced in group houses, etc. in some pretty creepy ways. Literally anyone from the outside would easily be convinced they were pretty much your standard apocalyptic sex cult, just from accurately describing it. I don't really care if people on EA forums don't all agree with SBF, but his type of thinking is standard if you use utilitarianism to make decisions in the real world, and it leads to some pretty horrific stuff. Consequentialism / utilitarianism are widely accepted in EA, and if you take that to the extreme, it can justify things like this.

dheera 3y ago

Is it just me or do a whole lot of EA people just love to keep talking but never do anything actually altruistic? I mean I get the idea of trying to optimize the value of charitable donations. But donating something is infinitely better than chatting all day and donating nothing. Even on a small scale, the number of times I've seen non-EA people do something nice is way, way more than the number of times I've seen an EA person come out of their "circle" and do something nice.

mplewis 3y ago
This is how EA works. It wouldn’t be maximally effective to donate the money now, would it? Compounding interest says you should hoard it until your dying day and only then invest in a charitable cause.
- verteu 3y ago
  No, you'd need to account for several things (curing someone of malaria has compounding returns, high-impact opportunities may dry up, etc). There's substantial discussion: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7uJcBNZhinomKtH9p/giving-now-vs-later-a-summary https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7uJcBNZhinomKtH9p/... I do agree that utilitarianism provides too much room for mental gymnastics which bad actors can use to feign benevolence.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  This is the smartest thing for the 99% though. While we're alive, we need the money now. Donate your estate once you're dead. It has a side benefit of discouraging accelerated inheritance schemes.
  - dheera 3y ago
    What if you have children? You could say they "need the money now" more than you do, and never donate. You could even write a recursive will that defines N=5, and requires your daughter or son, as a condition of inheriting the money, (a) never donate it during their lifetime and (b) compound it for a lifetime in S&P500 (c) write their own will with the exact same text with the only change being N = N-1 (d) donation is only allowed if you are N=0, and only under agreeing to fulfill (a), (b), and (c), do you even get to have the money.

dclowd9901 3y ago

Does that change the point? Even if not in earnest, he was able to deflect suspicion wearing a cloak of EA. That, in and of itself, is a problem. Nothing is above reproach, no matter how pious or nerdy.

tempsy 3y ago

His brother was heading some “Guarding against pandemics” non-profit that he was involved with. I believe there was one California proposition they were heavily funding related to it. I don’t know if it was started in earnest or if there was some ulterior motive.

reactordev 3y ago
Good doesn’t cancel out the bad
- kodapoda 3y ago
  Even further: debatable unproven good doesn't cancel out the immediate unmistakable bad. Sponsoring a regulation with stolen money is also self-serving (political influence), plus we don't have any data available to say that the regulation resulted in any societal good. We do know, though, that the stolen money negatively affected millions of people.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    Equally: indentured servitude in restitution isn't a valid rehabilitation strategy. It doesn't deter nor contract ones thinking to doing criminal activities. The only thing we can do it weigh punishment to severity of the crimes. SBF will soon find out what value that is.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  This sounded like more bad actually.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    Yes but the article talked about EA and how giving to causes blindly ignoring means is kinda the M.O. of it all. So "good" (giving) doesn't cancel out the "bad" (robbing customer funds).
    - 3y ago

ajross 3y ago

> He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, so clearly the whole "Effective altruism" was just a image he was trying to present, while acting completely against it in private. I don't think that's right. In his head, it wasn't fraud. He was moving money around to backstop losses, sure, and OK, technically it wasn't his. But it was all going to be OK in the end and no one would know. No one was going to lose any money, so no fraud. QED. In the real world, criminals don't think they're criminals. Everyone's got a good reason for doing what they do.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bitcharmer 3y ago
I can only buy this logic if one of the following is true: 1) SBF is an crook 2) SBF is an idiot
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  I agree. Given his professional history I believe the first option is likely. At the same time, he clearly isn’t that smart. He left an enormous trail of evidence in his wake, and his fraud wasn’t even that sophisticated.
  - tickerticker 3y ago
    He was smart enough to get into MIT. Probably not as smart as Goethe.
notahacker 3y ago
I think the key thing is that everything he's ever said and done (including the stuff that harmed only Sam Bankman Fried as well as the stuff that benefited him and the stuff that was illegal and lost his customers money) screams gambling addict. Its debatable whether the EA stuff was rationalisation of those impulses or reputation laundering, but he was quite explicit about the fact that his idea of "saving humanity" involved making massive financial bets whilst dismissing the idea of hedging against the downsides even in fawning interviews published by VCs that had invested in him. In that respect, his public image was entirely in keeping with the sort of person that wouldn't be bothered by a few regulations about customer funds, because what if he could double them by ignoring the regulation?...

CyberDildonics 3y ago

It's actually very common for companies doing terrible things like fraud, environmental damage, bait and switches, patent abuse etc. to lean hard on promoting social work they're doing. This is so common that short sellers like Kyle Bass actually look for it as an additional red flag when hunting down fraudulent companies.

FireBeyond 3y ago

I think anything SBF did to benefit others was a byproduct or side effect of what he was actually doing, enriching/empowering himself, like you say. Or, at best, a hedge in the form of insurance against bad PR.

tmaly 3y ago

He did give a lot of money, just not in a way that fit the image of EA.

mc32 3y ago

The argument is akin to saying bank robbery is a feature not a big when the thief donates his or her takes to charities of soup kitchens or what have you. It’s a ridiculous high school level argument.

aeternum 3y ago

Yes, he admitted multiple times that it was all just an act for public perception. Can't get much more clear than this: KP: you were really good at talking about ethics, for someone who kind of saw it all as a game with winners and losers SBF: ya SBF: hehe SBF: I had to be SBF: it's what reputations are made of, to some extent SBF: I feel bad for those who get f***** by it SBF: by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths [sic] and so everyone likes us

runjake 3y ago
Apparent source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
WD40forRust 3y ago
Based.
mynegation 3y ago
That’s what happens if one tries and mispronounces “shibboleth”.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  They lose their head? (:
QuantumGood 3y ago
Fraud was certainly a feature of the industry as a whole, e.g. https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
- colpabar 3y ago
  I think this attitude goes way beyond just crypto/web3. It seems like corporate greed and environmental destruction is a-ok as long as the company tweets in support of woke stuff.

injeolmi_love 3y ago

Most EA adherents focus on process not outcomes. So from an EA position, the fraud outcome doesn’t matter. Imagine if SBF gambles paid off they might say, and that potential outcome must be probablistically weighed against the negative outcome. Since crypto in most EA is viewed as a sin industry, the negative impact is minor relative to the positive impact of SBF political and charity donations, so even a slim chance of success should be taken. However EA logic is wrong because utilitarianism is wrong. It doesn’t matter whether stealing and fraud create good outcomes or not. Theft and fraud are evil in themselves irrespective of outcomes. To put it in an extreme sense, even if it would save the planet you should still not steal nor defraud others. The fact that some actions are in essence evil is enshrined in the legal system, is commonly accepted, and philosophically sound.

dirtyv 3y ago
Theft or fraud would definitely be preferable to the loss of the planet. Utilitarianism aside, sometimes doing the wrong thing actually is the better thing to do. Anyone who helped slaves escape via the Underground Railroad or smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany would not be considered evil for their actions, and those could easily be construed as theft (in a gross way) or fraud.
- injeolmi_love 3y ago
  Because humans have a natural right to movement, helping slaves is not theft even if an evil social institution falsely claims it is theft. Similarly regarding eugenics, humans have a natural right to reproduce and to live, so someone assisting someone to escape that situation is in the right no matter what society they live in. Extreme moral relativism like you’re mentioning here is just as wrong as utilitarianism. It’s not preferable to steal than to lose the planet. Some things really are worse than death, and committing an evil action is wrong no matter what the justification the evildoer makes.
  - dirtyv 3y ago
    Evil is not a 100% settled matter. For example, some people believe that saving another person's life if you can is a moral obligation and to not do so would be an evil act. I gather from your refusal to even consider stealing something in order to save the planet you are in the other camp.

mplewis 3y ago

What would be the difference between SBF being an effective altruist and doing fraud to hoard wealth until his dying day when he would turn it all into a public good, and saying he was and doing everything up until the last step? The fraud is still illegal. He would still have gone to jail.

jstarfish 3y ago

> I'm not sure how anyone could argue that what SBF was doing fits it any way with that. He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, EA strikes me as the same sort of ambiguous slime as "breast cancer awareness." You read the words and think hey, that sounds right. Benefit others as efficiently as possible. Guy's a Robin Hood type, stealing from the rich to benefit others. Good for you, buddy. Godspeed. Except you look at what he's actually doing and see he's not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. He's stealing from the foolish and giving to "others," who turn out to be his friends and associates. $500m to Anthropic? $5b for Twitter? This shit isn't charity. It's kleptocracy masquerading as charity. I can't see his charitable causes as anything more than an ephemeral funds-parking scheme storing funds in a chain of IOUs.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

SBF cannot even manage "ineffective" altruism. He puts other people through hell without a hint of empathy. How would anyone expect he could do "effective" altruism. In his own words, he "fucked up". But he is not sorry, he offers no apology, he's "not guilty". He is a compulsive liar. It will be interesting how he fares in prison. Martin Shkrelli wants to be his friend. Perhaps they can be pen pals. Maybe he'll get special treatment or early release. Even if SBF was following the EA playbook to the letter, it did not work. The attempt was ineffective. He failed. Michael Lewis shared some SBF story where the scenario (the bet) presented to SBF was a chance to make the world better or, if it failed, the entire world would be destroyed. SBF allegedly would take that bet. All or nothing. Where have we seen this type of thinking before.

omnimus 3y ago
Somehow our society puts the non-alturistic people into positions which have most impact. I guess the ineffective alturist knows its almost impossible to get to such position without wronging others. And its the ruthless fool with savior complex that puts himself above others “to save them”.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Ellison also shared the coin flip story on the stand, something like "heads the world is twice as good, tails the world is destroyed."