Still, it might make more sense for this to come from cause-specific budgets, so that longtermist funding from FTX and associates is paid back from the longtermist EA budget, and global health and development funding from FTX and associates is paid back from the GHD EA budget, and so on. You shouldnāt be able to shift EA funding between causes by committing fraud.
Ehhh, maybe? I feel like giving money back to people EAs took advantage of isnāt part of the ālongtermist causeā; itās part of the ādo right by people who EAs harmedā cause.
I donāt particularly mind if that money comes from the longtermist budget, but I wouldnāt want to delay the ādoing rightā part on that account.
Like, you could claim that itās only longtermists who are responsible, because SBF was a longtermist. But you could also claim that itās only a narrower group thatās responsible, because SBF had lots of specific views that arenāt universal among longtermists. I donāt want to go too far down that road, because carving things up too finely eventually means that no one in EA takes responsibility, since we can all claim to have different views from SBF on some dimension.
I think the main (only?) reason for doing it by cause would be to deter such future harms in the name of specific views, not about righting wrongs to others or attributing responsibility to specific views or groups. Otherwise EAs are more likely to think the expected benefits of unethical behaviour outweigh the expected costs, because they get to shift the expected costs onto other causes they care less about.
I donāt think there needs to be delay here. If Open Phil primarily takes this on, they could pay first and then rebudget later. OTOH, if other longtermist funders take some of this on, itāll be more clear to the public that longtermists are contributing specifically to paying off their ādebtsā (even if funding is pretty fungible and this shouldnāt really matter). I agree that carving things up can be pretty complicated, in principle. I guess I donāt expect this to matter too much, but I could see others disagreeing, since Iām less familiar with the disagreements within longtermism. Also, itās not about attributing responsibility to specific views, but tracking benefits. We know who got grants from FTX and associates, and we want to simulate them paying it back.
(I made some edits to this comment within the first 18 minutes of posting this comment, in case you were already reading or replying.)
EDIT: I guess we know less about where those benefits would have gone otherwise if not for FTX, which is still a problem, and can depend on differences in views within longtermism. This also applies to grantees paying back instead of funders.
Also, I guess another reason is that itās just more fair to other causes that benefited less that they should pay less.
Not sure why someone decided to (strong) downvote (and not just disagreevote) your comment here. Iāve upvoted your comment, since I think it has useful considerations, and neither agree nor disagree overall, since I donāt actually have a strong enough opinion here.
I guess itās more complicated than this, because FTX entering as a funder and disproportionately funding longtermism may have freed up funding for other cause areas. Still, Iād guess the counterfactual was disproportionately to the benefit of longtermism. We could try to simulate what would have happened without FTX and check where the extra money went. If only direct beneficiaries pay up, this is unfair to them, and indirect beneficies get away without paying.
Still, it might make more sense for this to come from cause-specific budgets, so that longtermist funding from FTX and associates is paid back from the longtermist EA budget, and global health and development funding from FTX and associates is paid back from the GHD EA budget, and so on. You shouldnāt be able to shift EA funding between causes by committing fraud.
Ehhh, maybe? I feel like giving money back to people EAs took advantage of isnāt part of the ālongtermist causeā; itās part of the ādo right by people who EAs harmedā cause.
I donāt particularly mind if that money comes from the longtermist budget, but I wouldnāt want to delay the ādoing rightā part on that account.
Like, you could claim that itās only longtermists who are responsible, because SBF was a longtermist. But you could also claim that itās only a narrower group thatās responsible, because SBF had lots of specific views that arenāt universal among longtermists. I donāt want to go too far down that road, because carving things up too finely eventually means that no one in EA takes responsibility, since we can all claim to have different views from SBF on some dimension.
I think the main (only?) reason for doing it by cause would be to deter such future harms in the name of specific views, not about righting wrongs to others or attributing responsibility to specific views or groups. Otherwise EAs are more likely to think the expected benefits of unethical behaviour outweigh the expected costs, because they get to shift the expected costs onto other causes they care less about.
I donāt think there needs to be delay here. If Open Phil primarily takes this on, they could pay first and then rebudget later. OTOH, if other longtermist funders take some of this on, itāll be more clear to the public that longtermists are contributing specifically to paying off their ādebtsā (even if funding is pretty fungible and this shouldnāt really matter). I agree that carving things up can be pretty complicated, in principle. I guess I donāt expect this to matter too much, but I could see others disagreeing, since Iām less familiar with the disagreements within longtermism. Also, itās not about attributing responsibility to specific views, but tracking benefits. We know who got grants from FTX and associates, and we want to simulate them paying it back.
(I made some edits to this comment within the first 18 minutes of posting this comment, in case you were already reading or replying.)
EDIT: I guess we know less about where those benefits would have gone otherwise if not for FTX, which is still a problem, and can depend on differences in views within longtermism. This also applies to grantees paying back instead of funders.
Also, I guess another reason is that itās just more fair to other causes that benefited less that they should pay less.
Not sure why someone decided to (strong) downvote (and not just disagreevote) your comment here. Iāve upvoted your comment, since I think it has useful considerations, and neither agree nor disagree overall, since I donāt actually have a strong enough opinion here.
I guess itās more complicated than this, because FTX entering as a funder and disproportionately funding longtermism may have freed up funding for other cause areas. Still, Iād guess the counterfactual was disproportionately to the benefit of longtermism. We could try to simulate what would have happened without FTX and check where the extra money went. If only direct beneficiaries pay up, this is unfair to them, and indirect beneficies get away without paying.