Also in the Yglesias post Rob wrote the OP in response to, Yglesias misrepresents SBFâs view then cites the 80k podcast as supporting this mistaken view when in fact it does not. Thatâs just bad journalism.
Until very recently, for example, I thought I had an unpublishable, off-the-record scoop about his weird idea that someone with his level of wealth should be indifferent between the status quo and a double-or-nothing bet with 50:50 odds.
Thereâs no way that is or ever has been SBFâs view. I donât buy it and think Yglesias is just misrepresenting SBFâs view. Of course SBF wouldnât be completely indifferent between keeping whatever his net worth was and taking a 50% chance of doubling it and a 50% chance of losing it all.
That I had this information made me nervous on behalf of people making plans based on his grants and his promises of money â I didnât realize this is actually something heâs repeatedly said publicly and on the record.
Yglesias then links to the allegedly offending passage, but I have to say that the passage does not support Yglesiasâ assertion than SBF is/âwas completely risk neutral about money. Choosing a 10% chance of $15 billion over a 100% chance of $1 billion is not risk neutral. It still allows for quite a bit of risk aversion.
I didnât relisten to the full 80k interview to see if something SBF said does justify Yglesiasâ assertion but from memory I feel quite sure it doesnât exist.
It still doesnât fully entail Mattâs claim, but the content of the interview gets a lot closer than that description. You donât need to give it a full listen, Iâve quoted the relevant part:
Thanks for finding and sharing that quote. I agree that it doesnât fully entail Mattâs claim, and would go further to say that it provides evidence against Mattâs claim.
In particular, SBFâs statement...
At what point are you out of ways for the world to spend money to change? [...] [I]tâs unclear exactly what the answer is, but itâs at least billions per year probably, so at least 100 billion overall before you risk running out of good things to do with money.
⌠makes clear that SBF was not completely risk neutral.
At the end of the excerpt Rob says âSo you kind of want to just be risk neutral.â To me the âkind ofâ is important to understanding his meaning. Relative to the individual making the âgamble my $10 billion and either get $20 billion or $0, with equal probabilityâ bet, for the altruistic actor itâs âitâs not so crazyâ. Obviously itâs still crazy, but also clearly Robâs point that itâs not as crazy as the madness of an individual doing this for their own self-interested gain is completely valid, given the difference in how steeply returns to spending diminish for a single individual versus all moral patients in the world (present and future) combined.
Yglesiasâ statement that SBF thought âsomeone with his level of wealth should be indifferent between the status quo and a double-or-nothing bet with 50:50 oddsâ is clearly false, though only a few words different than SBFâs agreement with Rob that an altruist doing this is ânot so crazyâ as a person doing it for self-interested reasons. So I agree âthe content of the interview gets a lot closer than that description,â but I also think Yglesias just did a bad job interpreting the interview. But who knows, maybe SBF misspoke to Yglesias in-person and most of the reason Yglesias had for believing SBF took that view was actually the words SBF spoke to him in person.
Also in the Yglesias post Rob wrote the OP in response to, Yglesias misrepresents SBFâs view then cites the 80k podcast as supporting this mistaken view when in fact it does not. Thatâs just bad journalism.
Thereâs no way that is or ever has been SBFâs view. I donât buy it and think Yglesias is just misrepresenting SBFâs view. Of course SBF wouldnât be completely indifferent between keeping whatever his net worth was and taking a 50% chance of doubling it and a 50% chance of losing it all.
Yglesias then links to the allegedly offending passage, but I have to say that the passage does not support Yglesiasâ assertion than SBF is/âwas completely risk neutral about money. Choosing a 10% chance of $15 billion over a 100% chance of $1 billion is not risk neutral. It still allows for quite a bit of risk aversion.
I didnât relisten to the full 80k interview to see if something SBF said does justify Yglesiasâ assertion but from memory I feel quite sure it doesnât exist.
It still doesnât fully entail Mattâs claim, but the content of the interview gets a lot closer than that description. You donât need to give it a full listen, Iâve quoted the relevant part:
https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââTHgezaPxhvoizkRFy/ââclarifications-on-diminishing-returns-and-risk-aversion-in?commentId=ppyzWLuhkuRJCifsx
Thanks for finding and sharing that quote. I agree that it doesnât fully entail Mattâs claim, and would go further to say that it provides evidence against Mattâs claim.
In particular, SBFâs statement...
⌠makes clear that SBF was not completely risk neutral.
At the end of the excerpt Rob says âSo you kind of want to just be risk neutral.â To me the âkind ofâ is important to understanding his meaning. Relative to the individual making the âgamble my $10 billion and either get $20 billion or $0, with equal probabilityâ bet, for the altruistic actor itâs âitâs not so crazyâ. Obviously itâs still crazy, but also clearly Robâs point that itâs not as crazy as the madness of an individual doing this for their own self-interested gain is completely valid, given the difference in how steeply returns to spending diminish for a single individual versus all moral patients in the world (present and future) combined.
Yglesiasâ statement that SBF thought âsomeone with his level of wealth should be indifferent between the status quo and a double-or-nothing bet with 50:50 oddsâ is clearly false, though only a few words different than SBFâs agreement with Rob that an altruist doing this is ânot so crazyâ as a person doing it for self-interested reasons. So I agree âthe content of the interview gets a lot closer than that description,â but I also think Yglesias just did a bad job interpreting the interview. But who knows, maybe SBF misspoke to Yglesias in-person and most of the reason Yglesias had for believing SBF took that view was actually the words SBF spoke to him in person.