I feel a bit disturbed that there doesn’t seem to be an apology here.
I had previously assumed that Open Philanthropy had responsibility for overseeing much of the SBF-EA connection and promotion.
Can you please make it clear if you feel like Open Philanthropy had any responsibility for the situation? Was Open Phil “owning” the responsibility? Was someone else?
I had previously assumed that Open Philanthropy had responsibility for overseeing much of the SBF-EA connection and promotion.
Why did you assume this? Serious question. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that Open Phil doesn’t consider itself responsible for overseeing the EA community.
To me some of the actors who seem like they should have had relevant responsibility here are CEA, 80K, and senior staff at the FTX Future Fund before they joined it.
SBF was a board member, previous employee/friend, and I believe a major funder, of CEA. 80k was sponsored by CEA and really doesn’t seem well placed to be making calls like this.
Also, generally, more of the “very senior and trusted EAs” seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I wrote about the future fund in my other comment.
80K promoted SBF uncritically to a large audience and highlighted him as a positive example for years (while also being well placed to know about the 2018 Alameda blowup) so I think it’s fair to say that they have some non-zero level of responsibility in the EA-SBF connection and promotion.
Also, generally, more of the “very senior and trusted EAs” seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I see. Thanks for sharing. I think it’s good to find out what expectations people had of different actors.
My expectations were that Open Phil is a family foundation with very large overlaps with the EA community and its interests including funding some parts of it, but it’s not fundamentally an actor with responsibility over the EA community’s decision making, especially nebulous and complex things like EA’s connections with a different billionaire. A lot of people the EA community considers leaders are at Open Phil, but I consider that pretty different from Open Philanthropy as an organization having responsibility for EA decision making. I’m not sure what, if anything, it should have done differently in this case.
After considering this comment and the relationship between Open Philanthropy and the rest of the EA ecosystem more, I’m reconsidering my position about Open Phil’s responsibility for EA’s relationships with FTX to one of much greater uncertainty.
CEA and 80k are both part of Effective Ventures. As far as I can tell, that means they’re legally the same entities (split into UK and USA operations) and largely funded by Open Philanthropy. Several board members are shared between Effective Ventures and the FTX Future Fund.
Aside: while fact-checking this comment, I found the 80,0000 donors page which I think is a commendable amount of transparency. Other EA organisations should consider replicating.
There was no one with official responsibility for the relationship between FTX and the EA community. I think the main reason the two were associated was via FTX’s/Sam having a high profile and talking a lot about EA—that’s not something anyone else was able to control. (Some folks did ask him to do less of this.)
It’s also worth noting that we generally try to be cautious about power dynamics as a funder, which means we are hesitant to be pushy about most matters. In particular, I think one of two major funders in this space attacking the other, nudging grantees to avoid association and funding from it, etc. would’ve been seen as strangely territorial behavior absent very strong evidence of misconduct.
That said: as mentioned in another comment, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I’d reasoned more like this: “This person is becoming very associated with effective altruism, so whether or not that’s due to anything I’ve done, it’s important to figure out whether that’s a bad thing and whether proactive distancing is needed.”
Also, I just want to flag that I really like the vote/agreement system used here. Seems like people thought the question was useful(I assume), and generally think that Open Philanthropy didn’t have responsibility here. That seems good to know!
If they were coupled, I would probably have felt more attacked.
Since writing this, I’ve realized that there probably is a lot more legal consideration regarding these announcements than I initially realized.
“Responsibility” is easily a legal term, so seems potentially hazardous to write about online, in this sort of situation. One of the absolute last things I want to see now would be the other EA funders having to get involved in a prolonged legal conflict.
If anything like this is the case, it could be safe to delay this sort of discussion until much later.
I really wish some of the key questions about this situation could be publicly figured out sooner, but here other things might likely take higher precedence.
All that said, after the key immediate disasters are tied up, I would be very interested in some discussion of which orgs held responsibility for this situation, if any did. I think work here could really help make/secure trust in these organizations. (This might be very obvious)
I would also be interested in knowing who/which org was “owning” the relationship with FTX...
Not to assign blame, but to figure out what the right institutional responsibility/oversight should have been, and what needs to be put in place should a similar situation emerge in future.
These people were employed directly by FTX. They weren’t well positioned to oversee FTX. (You can’t oversee the group that pays you.)
It’s possible that the individuals did very substantial due diligence before joining (not “should I join this org” due diligence, but “should we decide for all of EA that FTX should be trusted” due diligence), then thought that board members or other groups would oversee FTX.
I think they could have been proponents for some parts of this, but not the entire thing.
Were they? I had the impression that there was an (at least technically) independent organisation, FTX Foundation or FTX Philanthropy, that employed the FTX Future Found team. But of course this might very well be wrong. At least Will MacAskill, though, wasn’t an employee of FTX, he described his position as ‘unpaid advisor’ and his formal roles include being a Professor at Oxford University, trustee of CEA and Director of the Forethought Foundation.
I feel a bit disturbed that there doesn’t seem to be an apology here.
I had previously assumed that Open Philanthropy had responsibility for overseeing much of the SBF-EA connection and promotion.
Can you please make it clear if you feel like Open Philanthropy had any responsibility for the situation? Was Open Phil “owning” the responsibility? Was someone else?
Why did you assume this? Serious question. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that Open Phil doesn’t consider itself responsible for overseeing the EA community.
To me some of the actors who seem like they should have had relevant responsibility here are CEA, 80K, and senior staff at the FTX Future Fund before they joined it.
SBF was a board member, previous employee/friend, and I believe a major funder, of CEA. 80k was sponsored by CEA and really doesn’t seem well placed to be making calls like this.
Also, generally, more of the “very senior and trusted EAs” seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I wrote about the future fund in my other comment.
80K promoted SBF uncritically to a large audience and highlighted him as a positive example for years (while also being well placed to know about the 2018 Alameda blowup) so I think it’s fair to say that they have some non-zero level of responsibility in the EA-SBF connection and promotion.
I see. Thanks for sharing. I think it’s good to find out what expectations people had of different actors.
My expectations were that Open Phil is a family foundation with very large overlaps with the EA community and its interests including funding some parts of it, but it’s not fundamentally an actor with responsibility over the EA community’s decision making, especially nebulous and complex things like EA’s connections with a different billionaire. A lot of people the EA community considers leaders are at Open Phil, but I consider that pretty different from Open Philanthropy as an organization having responsibility for EA decision making. I’m not sure what, if anything, it should have done differently in this case.
After considering this comment and the relationship between Open Philanthropy and the rest of the EA ecosystem more, I’m reconsidering my position about Open Phil’s responsibility for EA’s relationships with FTX to one of much greater uncertainty.
CEA and 80k are both part of Effective Ventures. As far as I can tell, that means they’re legally the same entities (split into UK and USA operations) and largely funded by Open Philanthropy. Several board members are shared between Effective Ventures and the FTX Future Fund.
Aside: while fact-checking this comment, I found the 80,0000 donors page which I think is a commendable amount of transparency. Other EA organisations should consider replicating.
There was no one with official responsibility for the relationship between FTX and the EA community. I think the main reason the two were associated was via FTX’s/Sam having a high profile and talking a lot about EA—that’s not something anyone else was able to control. (Some folks did ask him to do less of this.)
It’s also worth noting that we generally try to be cautious about power dynamics as a funder, which means we are hesitant to be pushy about most matters. In particular, I think one of two major funders in this space attacking the other, nudging grantees to avoid association and funding from it, etc. would’ve been seen as strangely territorial behavior absent very strong evidence of misconduct.
That said: as mentioned in another comment, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I’d reasoned more like this: “This person is becoming very associated with effective altruism, so whether or not that’s due to anything I’ve done, it’s important to figure out whether that’s a bad thing and whether proactive distancing is needed.”
Also, I just want to flag that I really like the vote/agreement system used here. Seems like people thought the question was useful(I assume), and generally think that Open Philanthropy didn’t have responsibility here. That seems good to know!
If they were coupled, I would probably have felt more attacked.
Since writing this, I’ve realized that there probably is a lot more legal consideration regarding these announcements than I initially realized.
“Responsibility” is easily a legal term, so seems potentially hazardous to write about online, in this sort of situation. One of the absolute last things I want to see now would be the other EA funders having to get involved in a prolonged legal conflict.
If anything like this is the case, it could be safe to delay this sort of discussion until much later.
I really wish some of the key questions about this situation could be publicly figured out sooner, but here other things might likely take higher precedence.
All that said, after the key immediate disasters are tied up, I would be very interested in some discussion of which orgs held responsibility for this situation, if any did. I think work here could really help make/secure trust in these organizations. (This might be very obvious)
I would also be interested in knowing who/which org was “owning” the relationship with FTX...
Not to assign blame, but to figure out what the right institutional responsibility/oversight should have been, and what needs to be put in place should a similar situation emerge in future.
Surely it’s the people working for the FTX Foundation who were the connection between FTX and EA.
These people were employed directly by FTX. They weren’t well positioned to oversee FTX. (You can’t oversee the group that pays you.)
It’s possible that the individuals did very substantial due diligence before joining (not “should I join this org” due diligence, but “should we decide for all of EA that FTX should be trusted” due diligence), then thought that board members or other groups would oversee FTX.
I think they could have been proponents for some parts of this, but not the entire thing.
Were they? I had the impression that there was an (at least technically) independent organisation, FTX Foundation or FTX Philanthropy, that employed the FTX Future Found team. But of course this might very well be wrong. At least Will MacAskill, though, wasn’t an employee of FTX, he described his position as ‘unpaid advisor’ and his formal roles include being a Professor at Oxford University, trustee of CEA and Director of the Forethought Foundation.