The question that heads this post obviously answers itself, in that only actual perpetrators of bad deeds and their direct instigators (intellectual or otherwise) are to be held accountable for them; nevertheless, I must admit that I found Eliezer Yudkowsky’ analogy unconvincing, and (not quite, but feeling a little bit) disingenuous. Whenever we see examples of adherents of some creed, ideology, religious or thought system going into nefarious places, it is natural to wonder if said ideas (whether properly or mistakenly interpreted) influenced or condoned the path they took. Some articles I have read lately have pointed the finger towards the hubristic hazards of miscalculating for optimal results, and the concomitant dangers of risky betting and of cutting corners. As is well known, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And besides, as has been stated, a lot of the people involved in this weren’t just ‘fellow travelers’ or ocasional readers of EA material. A lot of them were very visibly engaged in and seen as poster childs for the movement. And I am sure most of them were innocent victims, especially so the rank-and-file workers of FTX and Alameda.
Having said that, I do not find it reasonable either to go to masochistic extremes of self-flagellation. Humans being what they are, there will always be cases of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and never enough controls to catch them in advance. Which is humbling, in a not necessarily bad way. My impression is that the EA community and its members are a wonderful group of people and they will probably come out of this situation wiser, if sadder. And that obviously, it is wrong to blame EA for what has happened.
As Eliezer Yudkowsky mentions Caroline Ellison’s blog, I would like to say that I have been reading it of late, and even taking into account the potential deceitfulness of words and the pictures we build with them, I do not get from both its contents and her general trajectory that she could be a morally bankrupt person. On the contrary, the impression I got is of a true believer, and a good person. This does not preclude the possibility that, under circumstances of a certain naiveté and inexperience in a field as murky as crypto, she might have let herself go along with what she might have perceived as temporary and ‘bad’ expedient means. But to believe this person ever intended to purposely and maliciously scam people our of their money or be privy to a fraud is, for me, completely out of the question. I believe the best option is to be charitable and await to see what the courts of law have to say once the dust has settled. As for SBF, and after reading some of the things he has said and done, that’s a completely different story.
The question that heads this post obviously answers itself, in that only actual perpetrators of bad deeds and their direct instigators (intellectual or otherwise) are to be held accountable for them; nevertheless, I must admit that I found Eliezer Yudkowsky’ analogy unconvincing, and (not quite, but feeling a little bit) disingenuous. Whenever we see examples of adherents of some creed, ideology, religious or thought system going into nefarious places, it is natural to wonder if said ideas (whether properly or mistakenly interpreted) influenced or condoned the path they took. Some articles I have read lately have pointed the finger towards the hubristic hazards of miscalculating for optimal results, and the concomitant dangers of risky betting and of cutting corners. As is well known, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And besides, as has been stated, a lot of the people involved in this weren’t just ‘fellow travelers’ or ocasional readers of EA material. A lot of them were very visibly engaged in and seen as poster childs for the movement. And I am sure most of them were innocent victims, especially so the rank-and-file workers of FTX and Alameda.
Having said that, I do not find it reasonable either to go to masochistic extremes of self-flagellation. Humans being what they are, there will always be cases of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and never enough controls to catch them in advance. Which is humbling, in a not necessarily bad way. My impression is that the EA community and its members are a wonderful group of people and they will probably come out of this situation wiser, if sadder. And that obviously, it is wrong to blame EA for what has happened.
As Eliezer Yudkowsky mentions Caroline Ellison’s blog, I would like to say that I have been reading it of late, and even taking into account the potential deceitfulness of words and the pictures we build with them, I do not get from both its contents and her general trajectory that she could be a morally bankrupt person. On the contrary, the impression I got is of a true believer, and a good person. This does not preclude the possibility that, under circumstances of a certain naiveté and inexperience in a field as murky as crypto, she might have let herself go along with what she might have perceived as temporary and ‘bad’ expedient means. But to believe this person ever intended to purposely and maliciously scam people our of their money or be privy to a fraud is, for me, completely out of the question. I believe the best option is to be charitable and await to see what the courts of law have to say once the dust has settled. As for SBF, and after reading some of the things he has said and done, that’s a completely different story.