Your summary of the article’s thesis doesn’t seem right to me:
b. Even though those EAs (including myself) quit before FTX was founded and therefore could not have had any first-hand knowledge of this improper relationship between AR and FTX, they knew things (like information about Sam’s character) which would have enabled them to predict that something bad would happen
c. This information was passed on to “EA leaders”, who did not take enough preventative action and are therefore (partly) responsible for FTX’s collapse
I interpreted the article as arguing more that EA leaders should not have promoted FTX / Sam as a model to look up to, or aligned themselves with him, rather than that they should have somehow prevented the fraud.
The article has this to say about the knowledge and responsibility of early employees:
None of the early Alameda employees who witnessed Bankman-Fried’s behavior years earlier say they anticipated this level of alleged criminal fraud. There was no “smoking gun,” as one put it, that revealed specific examples of lawbreaking. Even if they knew Bankman-Fried was dishonest and unethical, they say, none of them could have foreseen a fraud of this scope.
… which really doesn’t sound to me like it’s blaming those early employees for what happened. If anything, they come across as the heroes of the story!
In contrast, what seems to be particularly highlighted in the article is Will MacAskill’s association with Sam:
Even after Bankman-Fried left the board of CEA, he retained MacAskill’s support, both in public and private. In a 2022 interview on the 80,000 Hours podcast, MacAskill describes himself as “remarkably aligned with Sam,” and said the FTX Future Fund could be a “an enormous inflection point for EA.” FTX advertisements used the language of effective altruism. “I’m on crypto because I want to make the biggest global impact for good,” read one FTX ad, which featured a photo of Bankman-Fried.
So the thesis of the article seems to me more like, “EA leaders (esp. Will) should have known this guy was sketchy and stayed away.” rather than “EA leaders should have prevented the FTX fraud.”
The article reads to me like it’s trying to get away with insinuating that EA leaders somehow knew about or at least suspected the fraud, based on what they were told by employees who had no such suspicions.
They take pains to emphasise the innocence of their sources, of course—I agree that they’re painted as the heroes of the story (emphasis mine):
None of the early Alameda employees who witnessed Bankman-Fried’s behavior years earlier say they anticipated this level of alleged criminal fraud. There was no “smoking gun,” as one put it, that revealed specific examples of lawbreaking. Even if they knew Bankman-Fried was dishonest and unethical, they say, none of them could have foreseen a fraud of this scope.
While suggesting that despite this, EA leaders somehow knew (emphasis mine):
When Alameda and Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency exchange FTX imploded in late 2022, these same effective altruist (EA) leaders professed outrage and ignorance.
...
Multiple EA leaders knew about the red flags surrounding Bankman-Fried
...
“I was shocked at how much of what came out about FTX rhymed with the concerns we raised in the early days … It was the same thing. All of the same problems.”
...
In a planning document prepared for that confrontation and reviewed exclusively by TIME, they accuse him of “gross negligence,” “willful and wanton conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury,” and “willful and knowing violations of agreements or obligations, particularly with regards to creditors”—all language that echoes the U.S. criminal code.
So I don’t think the thesis of the article is simply, “EA leaders (esp. Will) should have known this guy was sketchy and stayed away.”
And let’s be honest, “These people said some positive things about a sketchy rich guy and gave him philanthropic advice” is not a story—they wouldn’t be writing it if that was what they were trying to convey.
“These people knew about one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history but didn’t try to stop it”—now that’s a story.
These people knew about one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history but didn’t try to stop it
I think you’re stretching here. Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the EA leaders actually knew about ongoing fraud.
It just says (as in the quotes you cited), that they’d been warned Sam was shady. That’s very different from having actual knowledge of ongoing fraud. If the article wanted to make that claim, I think it would have been more direct about it.
Your summary of the article’s thesis doesn’t seem right to me:
I interpreted the article as arguing more that EA leaders should not have promoted FTX / Sam as a model to look up to, or aligned themselves with him, rather than that they should have somehow prevented the fraud.
The article has this to say about the knowledge and responsibility of early employees:
… which really doesn’t sound to me like it’s blaming those early employees for what happened. If anything, they come across as the heroes of the story!
In contrast, what seems to be particularly highlighted in the article is Will MacAskill’s association with Sam:
So the thesis of the article seems to me more like, “EA leaders (esp. Will) should have known this guy was sketchy and stayed away.” rather than “EA leaders should have prevented the FTX fraud.”
The article reads to me like it’s trying to get away with insinuating that EA leaders somehow knew about or at least suspected the fraud, based on what they were told by employees who had no such suspicions.
They take pains to emphasise the innocence of their sources, of course—I agree that they’re painted as the heroes of the story (emphasis mine):
While suggesting that despite this, EA leaders somehow knew (emphasis mine):
So I don’t think the thesis of the article is simply, “EA leaders (esp. Will) should have known this guy was sketchy and stayed away.”
And let’s be honest, “These people said some positive things about a sketchy rich guy and gave him philanthropic advice” is not a story—they wouldn’t be writing it if that was what they were trying to convey.
“These people knew about one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history but didn’t try to stop it”—now that’s a story.
I think you’re stretching here. Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the EA leaders actually knew about ongoing fraud.
It just says (as in the quotes you cited), that they’d been warned Sam was shady. That’s very different from having actual knowledge of ongoing fraud. If the article wanted to make that claim, I think it would have been more direct about it.