Prediction markets are pretty well calibrated and help us see a median view on things.
Before this article was published the below market was at 15%. Though it should be noted that I am the second largest holder of “No” and Naia, featured in the article is the third largest holder of “Yes”
We can see how much this shifts the market.
Also:
Finally: Will SBF plead guilty. if he doesn’t then there is gonna be a public trial and that’s gonna be pretty punishing for us.
No one has alleged criminal behavior on the part of top EA figures.
(E.g. Lawrence Newport says, “I will now have to update against how open I am in discussions with other EAs—which is a shame as the intellectual freedom, generosity, honesty and subtlety are what I love about this community—but it seems I will have to consider “what may a journalist think of this if this person leaked it?” as a serious concern.” Although I guess this case is more relevant to senior EA leaders being able to communicate freely with one another rather than the rest of us?)
I think youre right to think about the specific email contents here. For example, disclosing an email that shows Person A was aware of certain facts generally poses fewer concerns about interference with deliberative processes and reasonable expectations of trust than does disclosure of deliberations, evidence relating to an individual’s thinking or internal mental processes, etc.
Agree. I thought the article implied that more was shared with TIME than just the emails from the people concerned to senior EA leaders given their use of “among” rather than “to” and quoting a reply from a leader:
In emails among senior EA leaders, which TIME reviewed, one person wrote that they had raised worries about Bankman-Fried’s trustworthiness directly with MacAskill, and that MacAskill had dismissed the concerns as “rumor.”
(I wouldn’t have mentioned it if I’d thought otherwise, although it’s encouraging that you and Nathan Young seem to be implying that you didn’t interpret that part like I did—I was genuinely curious to get Nathan’s take.)
Still, it’s one thing to share private emails from others with a journalist and another for the journalist to quote said emails extensively—the latter would have been a much larger breach of trust.
Edit: I now see that the person quoted is the person raising concerns, not the leader—the person described the leader’s response as ‘dismissing it as a rumor.’
Edited to just be the markets.
Prediction markets are pretty well calibrated and help us see a median view on things.
Before this article was published the below market was at 15%. Though it should be noted that I am the second largest holder of “No” and Naia, featured in the article is the third largest holder of “Yes”
We can see how much this shifts the market.
Also:
Finally: Will SBF plead guilty. if he doesn’t then there is gonna be a public trial and that’s gonna be pretty punishing for us.
@Nathan Young This is interesting, but I’m struggling to understand how it is helpful or would change things. Can you help me understand?
I’m curious if this:
is another update for you in the direction of not being able to communicate freely given that:
(E.g. Lawrence Newport says, “I will now have to update against how open I am in discussions with other EAs—which is a shame as the intellectual freedom, generosity, honesty and subtlety are what I love about this community—but it seems I will have to consider “what may a journalist think of this if this person leaked it?” as a serious concern.” Although I guess this case is more relevant to senior EA leaders being able to communicate freely with one another rather than the rest of us?)
I don’t know what the emails contained. My general stance:
Only share private messages if there was serious wrongdoing
I would support those who warned sharing their emails
I would not support general email sharing
I sense Lawrence and I disagree on this a bit.
I think youre right to think about the specific email contents here. For example, disclosing an email that shows Person A was aware of certain facts generally poses fewer concerns about interference with deliberative processes and reasonable expectations of trust than does disclosure of deliberations, evidence relating to an individual’s thinking or internal mental processes, etc.
Agree. I thought the article implied that more was shared with TIME than just the emails from the people concerned to senior EA leaders given their use of “among” rather than “to”
and quoting a reply from a leader:(I wouldn’t have mentioned it if I’d thought otherwise, although it’s encouraging that you and Nathan Young seem to be implying that you didn’t interpret that part like I did—I was genuinely curious to get Nathan’s take.)
Still, it’s one thing to share private emails from others with a journalist and another for the journalist to quote said emails extensively—the latter would have been a much larger breach of trust.
Edit: I now see that the person quoted is the person raising concerns, not the leader—the person described the leader’s response as ‘dismissing it as a rumor.’