Also, I feel mean for pressing the point against someone who is clearly finding this stressful and is no more responsible for it than anyone else in the know, but I really want someone to properly explain what the warning signs the leadership saw were, who saw them, and what was said internally in response to them. I donât even know how much that will help with anything, to be honest, so much as I just want to know. But at least in theory, anyone who behaved really badly should be removed from positions of power. (And I do mean just that: positions where they run big orgs: Iâm not saying they should be shunned or they canât be allowed to contribute to the community intellectually any more.) If Rebecca wonât do this, someone else should. But also, depending on how bad the behavior of leaders actually was, in NOT saying more people with inside knowledge are probably either a) helping people escape responsibility for really bad behavior or b) making what were reasonably sympathetic mistakes that many people might have made in the same position sound much worse than they were through vagueness, leading to unfair reputational damage. (EDIT: I should say that sadly, I think a) is much the more likely possibility.) Not to mention that right now it is not clear which leaders are the responsible ones, which is unfair on anyone who actually didnât do anything wrong. Which could include not just people with no knowledge of the warning signs, but people who knew about them, complained internally, were ignored, and then didnât take things public for defensible reasons.
ICYMI: I wrote this in response to a previous âEA leaders knew stuffâ story. [Although Iâm not sure if Iâm one of the âleadersâ Becca is referring to, or if the signs I mentioned are what sheâs concerned about.]
Am I correct in interpreting your comment as something like âRebecca says itâs costly to say more which might imply she is sitting on not yet disclosed information that might put powerful EAs in a bad lightâ? I did not really pick up on this when reading the OP but your comment got me worried that maybe there is some information that should be made public?
âAm I correct in interpreting your comment as something like âRebecca says itâs costly to say more which might imply she is sitting on not yet disclosed information that might put powerful EAs in a bad lightâ?â
Yes, thatâs what I meant. Maybe not ânot all ready disclosedâ though. It might just be confirmation that the portraited painted here is indeed fair and accurate: https://ââtime.com/ââ6262810/ââsam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism-alameda-ftx/ââ EDIT: I donât doubt that the article is broadly literally accurate, but thereâs always a big gap between what claims a piece of journalism like this is making if you take it absolutely 100% literally line-by-line and the general impression youâd get about what happened if you fill in the blanks from those facts in the way the piece encourages you to. Itâs the latter that I think it is currently unclear how accurate it is, though after Rebeccaâs post I am heavily leaning towards the view that the broad impression painted by the article is indeed accurate.
Also, I feel mean for pressing the point against someone who is clearly finding this stressful and is no more responsible for it than anyone else in the know, but I really want someone to properly explain what the warning signs the leadership saw were, who saw them, and what was said internally in response to them. I donât even know how much that will help with anything, to be honest, so much as I just want to know. But at least in theory, anyone who behaved really badly should be removed from positions of power. (And I do mean just that: positions where they run big orgs: Iâm not saying they should be shunned or they canât be allowed to contribute to the community intellectually any more.) If Rebecca wonât do this, someone else should. But also, depending on how bad the behavior of leaders actually was, in NOT saying more people with inside knowledge are probably either a) helping people escape responsibility for really bad behavior or b) making what were reasonably sympathetic mistakes that many people might have made in the same position sound much worse than they were through vagueness, leading to unfair reputational damage. (EDIT: I should say that sadly, I think a) is much the more likely possibility.) Not to mention that right now it is not clear which leaders are the responsible ones, which is unfair on anyone who actually didnât do anything wrong. Which could include not just people with no knowledge of the warning signs, but people who knew about them, complained internally, were ignored, and then didnât take things public for defensible reasons.
ICYMI: I wrote this in response to a previous âEA leaders knew stuffâ story. [Although Iâm not sure if Iâm one of the âleadersâ Becca is referring to, or if the signs I mentioned are what sheâs concerned about.]
Am I correct in interpreting your comment as something like âRebecca says itâs costly to say more which might imply she is sitting on not yet disclosed information that might put powerful EAs in a bad lightâ? I did not really pick up on this when reading the OP but your comment got me worried that maybe there is some information that should be made public?
âAm I correct in interpreting your comment as something like âRebecca says itâs costly to say more which might imply she is sitting on not yet disclosed information that might put powerful EAs in a bad lightâ?â
Yes, thatâs what I meant. Maybe not ânot all ready disclosedâ though. It might just be confirmation that the portraited painted here is indeed fair and accurate: https://ââtime.com/ââ6262810/ââsam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism-alameda-ftx/ââ EDIT: I donât doubt that the article is broadly literally accurate, but thereâs always a big gap between what claims a piece of journalism like this is making if you take it absolutely 100% literally line-by-line and the general impression youâd get about what happened if you fill in the blanks from those facts in the way the piece encourages you to. Itâs the latter that I think it is currently unclear how accurate it is, though after Rebeccaâs post I am heavily leaning towards the view that the broad impression painted by the article is indeed accurate.