4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.