4 ms·

Good riddance to these ideologues. It's a shame that the announcement shows no trace of remorse for the crimes they inspired (e.g. at FTX) or the lives that hav

Good riddance to these ideologues. It's a shame that the announcement shows no trace of remorse for the crimes they inspired (e.g. at FTX) or the lives that have been ruined by the cults to which they lent academic legitimacy. Instead, their demise is chalked up to some bland moaning about "administrative headwinds". Realistically, we're probably only looking at a brief respite before they regroup under some other benevolent-sounding name. Be on the lookout for their next incarnation, and let's hope that Oxford won't repeat the mistake of allowing them to evangelize under the seal of a great university. (Edit in response to causal's question below): They legitimized longtermism and pseudo-rational AI panic, which transformed much of EA into an apocalyptic sect, with all the high-demand group dynamics that come with it. Their research created an air of urgency and expediency which, among other bad outcomes, inspired the devoted EAs at FTX to justify their crimes to themselves. These crimes resulted in privation and a few suicides for their innocent depositors. To this day, there are EAs who rationalize these crimes against their outgroup as not that bad, considering that the "Future of Humanity" is at stake. You can look at the movement and find plenty of other negative effects of this urgency and expediency, but for me personally, the FTX crimes are what woke me up to the true nature of these hazardous ideas.

causal 3y ago
That's a lot of vague vitriol, what exactly did FHI do? Genuinely curious.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rurp 3y ago
It's quite a leap to assume that SBF only turned to a life of crime because the EA movement lured him into it. There are legitimate criticisms of EA and I'm not personally a follower of the movement but your post comes off as way too generally dismissive. Many of the people involved seem to have good intentions and a lot of money has been donated to objectively good causes. The longtermism stuff is more squishy, but our society is pretty bad at dealing with certain types of existential risks and we could use more people thinking about solutions rather than less.
- arduanika 3y ago
  > to assume that SBF only turned to a life of crime because the EA movement lured him into it. It's not an assumption. It's a matter of record, understood by anyone who knows the basics of the FTX saga. SBF is a lifelong utilitarian, and his co-conspirators were also committed EAs. Anyone who obscures that fact is abetting the campaign of obfuscation. > Many of the people involved seem to have good intentions Yup. That includes Sam and his friends. How did that turn out? > a lot of money has been donated To borrow your language, "it's quite a leap to assume" that anyone donated money just because EA lured them into it. How do we know they weren't going to behave altruistically in the absence of the movement? Why is there an isolated demand for rigor when confronting the movement's adverse effects? Do you think that Sam is inherently a criminal, with ideology playing no role, whereas EA donors aren't inherently generous? > to objectively good causes Fair enough. I will concede that there were a few of these. In some cases, early EA principles may have helped people arrive at these good ideas in a way that wouldn't have happened without the movement. It's just that, I get annoyed when people dismiss the downsides, writing them off as aberrations or lone bad actors. And given the major flaws in the philosophy, it's hard to shake my suspicion that most of their longtermist explorations are worse than just "squishy". It seems quite plausible that they're doing more harm than good.
  - johnthewise 3y ago
    This type of argument can be used against pretty much any group that has ever existed, then either it's too broad and not a meaningful critique of the group itself or a critique of humans getting together in general.
    - arduanika 3y ago
      Sorry, you've lost me here. Which part of my argument are referring to? I'm not criticizing a group, btw. I'm criticizing ideas. Ideas have specific consequences. Some ideas inspire good actions. Some inspire bad actions that outweigh the good. When an idea claims to have big consequences in the distant future, we can look at its consequences in the present day to help us guess the likely nature of those future consequences. Oxford deals in ideas, and gets to decide which ones to host and fund. Sometimes they get it wrong, mistaking bad ideas for good ones. That's unfortunate, but it's nice when they come around to the right assessment eventually.
StressedDev 3y ago
I really don't think you can blame Effective Alterism (EA) or these guy for FTX. FTX was a fraud and it occurred because Sam Bankman-Fried used customer money to prop up his failing investment company (Almeada Research). To be blunt he stole from his customers to try and prop up a failing business. He also lied, used customer money to fund a lavish lifestyle, used customer money to donate to political causes, etc. Basically, I doubt Effective Altruism condoned stealing from people to prop up businesses, fund personal causes, and enrich oneself.
- esailija 3y ago
  Actually the belief that you're good or "doing altruism" is exactly the kind of thing that would cause a person to do such evil things. If we take bible metaphorically it's pretty smart because believing you are a inherently unworthy sinner will actually encourage you to do good things instead of the opposite which just causes people to do evil things and virtue signal. Basically "But we're the good guys" <- that's how you know who is truly evil.
- arduanika 3y ago
  > it occurred because Sam Bankman-Fried used customer money to... This is a weird use of "because". You're saying roughly, "the fraud occurred because <the mechanics of the fraud>". That stuff is not why it occurred, it's how. People do things for reasons. > fund a lavish lifestyle More lavish than portrayed in his PR and parroted by EA leaders, but less lavish than a typical billionaire in his situation (to say nothing of a typical crypto billionaire!) Spending some money on nice, convenient living for himself and his team is not inconsistent with longtermism. To use a CS term, it's analogous to the concept of amortization.

causal 3y ago

That's a lot of vague vitriol, what exactly did FHI do? Genuinely curious.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rurp 3y ago

It's quite a leap to assume that SBF only turned to a life of crime because the EA movement lured him into it. There are legitimate criticisms of EA and I'm not personally a follower of the movement but your post comes off as way too generally dismissive. Many of the people involved seem to have good intentions and a lot of money has been donated to objectively good causes. The longtermism stuff is more squishy, but our society is pretty bad at dealing with certain types of existential risks and we could use more people thinking about solutions rather than less.

arduanika 3y ago
> to assume that SBF only turned to a life of crime because the EA movement lured him into it. It's not an assumption. It's a matter of record, understood by anyone who knows the basics of the FTX saga. SBF is a lifelong utilitarian, and his co-conspirators were also committed EAs. Anyone who obscures that fact is abetting the campaign of obfuscation. > Many of the people involved seem to have good intentions Yup. That includes Sam and his friends. How did that turn out? > a lot of money has been donated To borrow your language, "it's quite a leap to assume" that anyone donated money just because EA lured them into it. How do we know they weren't going to behave altruistically in the absence of the movement? Why is there an isolated demand for rigor when confronting the movement's adverse effects? Do you think that Sam is inherently a criminal, with ideology playing no role, whereas EA donors aren't inherently generous? > to objectively good causes Fair enough. I will concede that there were a few of these. In some cases, early EA principles may have helped people arrive at these good ideas in a way that wouldn't have happened without the movement. It's just that, I get annoyed when people dismiss the downsides, writing them off as aberrations or lone bad actors. And given the major flaws in the philosophy, it's hard to shake my suspicion that most of their longtermist explorations are worse than just "squishy". It seems quite plausible that they're doing more harm than good.
- johnthewise 3y ago
  This type of argument can be used against pretty much any group that has ever existed, then either it's too broad and not a meaningful critique of the group itself or a critique of humans getting together in general.
  - arduanika 3y ago
    Sorry, you've lost me here. Which part of my argument are referring to? I'm not criticizing a group, btw. I'm criticizing ideas. Ideas have specific consequences. Some ideas inspire good actions. Some inspire bad actions that outweigh the good. When an idea claims to have big consequences in the distant future, we can look at its consequences in the present day to help us guess the likely nature of those future consequences. Oxford deals in ideas, and gets to decide which ones to host and fund. Sometimes they get it wrong, mistaking bad ideas for good ones. That's unfortunate, but it's nice when they come around to the right assessment eventually.

StressedDev 3y ago

I really don't think you can blame Effective Alterism (EA) or these guy for FTX. FTX was a fraud and it occurred because Sam Bankman-Fried used customer money to prop up his failing investment company (Almeada Research). To be blunt he stole from his customers to try and prop up a failing business. He also lied, used customer money to fund a lavish lifestyle, used customer money to donate to political causes, etc. Basically, I doubt Effective Altruism condoned stealing from people to prop up businesses, fund personal causes, and enrich oneself.

esailija 3y ago
Actually the belief that you're good or "doing altruism" is exactly the kind of thing that would cause a person to do such evil things. If we take bible metaphorically it's pretty smart because believing you are a inherently unworthy sinner will actually encourage you to do good things instead of the opposite which just causes people to do evil things and virtue signal. Basically "But we're the good guys" <- that's how you know who is truly evil.
arduanika 3y ago
> it occurred because Sam Bankman-Fried used customer money to... This is a weird use of "because". You're saying roughly, "the fraud occurred because <the mechanics of the fraud>". That stuff is not why it occurred, it's how. People do things for reasons. > fund a lavish lifestyle More lavish than portrayed in his PR and parroted by EA leaders, but less lavish than a typical billionaire in his situation (to say nothing of a typical crypto billionaire!) Spending some money on nice, convenient living for himself and his team is not inconsistent with longtermism. To use a CS term, it's analogous to the concept of amortization.