How was he to know that was going to be made public? That’s not “to put this guy on a pedestal; to elevate him as a moral paragon and someone to emulate; to tie EA’s reputation so closely to his,” that’s “I think these two should talk and it seems like that comes down to how much I vouch for him. And honestly I do vouch for him in this context [given what I know at this point].”
@Michael_PJ offered a comment about “content linking Sam to EA.” That last sentence is hard to read as anything but.
One should know that conversations with someone as famous and unfiltered as Elon Musk about the year’s most-talked about acquisition could go public. There are also other non-public boosts like the quote at the end of the article. But even if not, the private vouch still goes to @lilly ’s point about why anyone would boost/vouch for SBF “knowing what it appears they knew then.”
Maybe he knew there was a chance his text would end up being publicly revealed in court (I wouldn’t, but okay), but that’s quite different from public promotion. And I wouldn’t consider this “content linking Sam to EA” either, and anyway the context of Michael_PJ using those words was the thing I quoted—that’s the relevant thing we’re discussing here. And again, the quote at the end of the article doesn’t read to me as “to put this guy on a pedestal; to elevate him as a moral paragon and someone to emulate; to tie EA’s reputation so closely to his” (although granted maybe “friend” was unnecessary for a simple “thanks for hosting”). And if I was him, I think I’d have vouched for SBF to Musk too: “You’re both cut-throat businessmen, both insanely good at making money, both very dedicated to making the long-term future go well...I think you’ll get on just fine.”
I think that’s a good example of “why would people do this given what they knew?”, I’m not sure it’s an example of pedestalising etc. I’m being a bit fussy here because I do think I’ve seen the specific claim that there was lots of public promotion of Sam and I’m just not sure if it’s true.
I do think I’ve seen the specific claim that there was lots of public promotion of Sam
Fuss away. E.g.
Jack Lewars “to avoid putting single donors on a huge pedestal inside and outside the community” and again “putting [SBF] on a pedestal and making them symbolic of EA”
Gideon Futerman “making and encouraging Will (and I guess until recently to a lesser extent SBF) the face of EA”
tcheasdfjkl “while a lot of (other?) EAs are promoting him publicly”
Peter S. Park “But making SBF the face of the EA movement was a really bad decision”
Devon Fritz “EA decided to hold up and promote SBF as a paragon of EA values and on of the few prominent faces in the EA community”
Dean Abele “I don’t know if I should stay in EA. I would feel very sad if [Will] publicly praised someone who turned out to be morally bankrupt. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. But still, some trust has been lost.”
Peter Wildeford “The other clear mistake was promoting Sam so heavily as the poster child of EA.” [This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]
David_Althaus “I think it’s clear that we put SBF on a pedestal and promoted him as someone worth emulating, I don’t really know what to say to someone who disagrees with this.”
Habryka “Some part of EA leadership ended up endorsing SBF very publicly and very strongly despite having very likely heard about the concerns, and without following up on them (In my model of the world Will fucked up really hard here)” and again “[Will] was the person most responsible for entangling EA with FTX by publicly endorsing SBF multiple times”
Jonas Vollmer “while Nick took SBF’s money, he didn’t give SBF a strong platform or otherwise promote him a lot...So...Will should be removed”
There is the whole vouching for SBF as prospective purchaser of Twitter:
You vouch for him?
Very much so! Very dedicated to making the long-term future of humanity go well.
How was he to know that was going to be made public? That’s not “to put this guy on a pedestal; to elevate him as a moral paragon and someone to emulate; to tie EA’s reputation so closely to his,” that’s “I think these two should talk and it seems like that comes down to how much I vouch for him. And honestly I do vouch for him in this context [given what I know at this point].”
@Michael_PJ offered a comment about “content linking Sam to EA.” That last sentence is hard to read as anything but.
One should know that conversations with someone as famous and unfiltered as Elon Musk about the year’s most-talked about acquisition could go public. There are also other non-public boosts like the quote at the end of the article. But even if not, the private vouch still goes to @lilly ’s point about why anyone would boost/vouch for SBF “knowing what it appears they knew then.”
Maybe he knew there was a chance his text would end up being publicly revealed in court (I wouldn’t, but okay), but that’s quite different from public promotion. And I wouldn’t consider this “content linking Sam to EA” either, and anyway the context of Michael_PJ using those words was the thing I quoted—that’s the relevant thing we’re discussing here. And again, the quote at the end of the article doesn’t read to me as “to put this guy on a pedestal; to elevate him as a moral paragon and someone to emulate; to tie EA’s reputation so closely to his” (although granted maybe “friend” was unnecessary for a simple “thanks for hosting”). And if I was him, I think I’d have vouched for SBF to Musk too: “You’re both cut-throat businessmen, both insanely good at making money, both very dedicated to making the long-term future go well...I think you’ll get on just fine.”
I think that’s a good example of “why would people do this given what they knew?”, I’m not sure it’s an example of pedestalising etc. I’m being a bit fussy here because I do think I’ve seen the specific claim that there was lots of public promotion of Sam and I’m just not sure if it’s true.
Fuss away. E.g.
Jack Lewars “to avoid putting single donors on a huge pedestal inside and outside the community” and again “putting [SBF] on a pedestal and making them symbolic of EA”
Gideon Futerman “making and encouraging Will (and I guess until recently to a lesser extent SBF) the face of EA”
tcheasdfjkl “while a lot of (other?) EAs are promoting him publicly”
Peter S. Park “But making SBF the face of the EA movement was a really bad decision”
Devon Fritz “EA decided to hold up and promote SBF as a paragon of EA values and on of the few prominent faces in the EA community”
Dean Abele “I don’t know if I should stay in EA. I would feel very sad if [Will] publicly praised someone who turned out to be morally bankrupt. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. But still, some trust has been lost.”
Peter Wildeford “The other clear mistake was promoting Sam so heavily as the poster child of EA.” [This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]
David_Althaus “I think it’s clear that we put SBF on a pedestal and promoted him as someone worth emulating, I don’t really know what to say to someone who disagrees with this.”
Habryka “Some part of EA leadership ended up endorsing SBF very publicly and very strongly despite having very likely heard about the concerns, and without following up on them (In my model of the world Will fucked up really hard here)” and again “[Will] was the person most responsible for entangling EA with FTX by publicly endorsing SBF multiple times”
Jonas Vollmer “while Nick took SBF’s money, he didn’t give SBF a strong platform or otherwise promote him a lot...So...Will should be removed”