What do EA and Holden Karnofsky think of a claim by Kerry Vaughan that Sam Bankman-Fried did severely unethical behavior before and EA and FTX covered it up and laundered his reputation, effectively getting away with it.
I’m posting because of true, this suggests big changes to EA norms are necessary to deal with bad actors like him, and that Sam Bankman-Fried should be outright banned from the forum and EA events.
In 2018, I heard accusations that Sam had communicated in ways that left people confused or misled, though often with some ambiguity about whether Sam had been confused himself, had been inadvertently misleading while factually accurate, etc. I put some effort into understanding these concerns (but didn’t spend a ton of time on it; Open Phil didn’t have a relationship with Sam or Alameda).
I didn’t hear anything that sounded anywhere near as bad as what has since come out about his behavior at FTX. At the time I didn’t feel my concerns rose to the level where it would be appropriate or fair to publicly attack or condemn him. The whole situation did make me vaguely nervous, and I spoke with some people about it privately, but I never came to a conclusion that there was a clearly warranted (public) action.
Comment on the phrasing but not the substance of what you’re saying:
IMO, “malevolent” is a bad phrase for what I think you might mean. (To my ears, “malevolent” has the connotations of wanting to do something bad for consciously-selfish reasons or wishing bad things upon others. That’s different from being very strategic about one’s actions in interpersonal situations, being comfortable with lying, etc.)
I use “dark triad traits” or “person who seems interpersonally incorrigible.” (If I thought someone were sadistic or particularly spiteful, then I think “malevolent” would also be appropriate.)
(FWIW I found “dark triad” more jarring and skepticism-provoking than if you’d just said “malevolent”, since I take it more seriously as a contentful attempt at psychological diagnosis, and therefore not the kind of thing I expect to be casually dropped into an otherwise-unrelated comment.
If you want a vaguer term, some common options include “bad actors” or “people acting in bad faith”. “Dark-triad-ish people” would also have made more sense to me and made me way less skeptical on a first read.)
Question for Holden Karnofsky:
What do EA and Holden Karnofsky think of a claim by Kerry Vaughan that Sam Bankman-Fried did severely unethical behavior before and EA and FTX covered it up and laundered his reputation, effectively getting away with it.
I’m posting because of true, this suggests big changes to EA norms are necessary to deal with bad actors like him, and that Sam Bankman-Fried should be outright banned from the forum and EA events.
Link to tweets here:
https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1590807597011333120
In 2018, I heard accusations that Sam had communicated in ways that left people confused or misled, though often with some ambiguity about whether Sam had been confused himself, had been inadvertently misleading while factually accurate, etc. I put some effort into understanding these concerns (but didn’t spend a ton of time on it; Open Phil didn’t have a relationship with Sam or Alameda).
I didn’t hear anything that sounded anywhere near as bad as what has since come out about his behavior at FTX. At the time I didn’t feel my concerns rose to the level where it would be appropriate or fair to publicly attack or condemn him. The whole situation did make me vaguely nervous, and I spoke with some people about it privately, but I never came to a conclusion that there was a clearly warranted (public) action.
Comment on the phrasing but not the substance of what you’re saying:
IMO, “malevolent” is a bad phrase for what I think you might mean. (To my ears, “malevolent” has the connotations of wanting to do something bad for consciously-selfish reasons or wishing bad things upon others. That’s different from being very strategic about one’s actions in interpersonal situations, being comfortable with lying, etc.)
I understand, but what is the alternative, exactly?
I use “dark triad traits” or “person who seems interpersonally incorrigible.” (If I thought someone were sadistic or particularly spiteful, then I think “malevolent” would also be appropriate.)
Alright, I’ll edit my comments to use dark triad traits now.
(FWIW I found “dark triad” more jarring and skepticism-provoking than if you’d just said “malevolent”, since I take it more seriously as a contentful attempt at psychological diagnosis, and therefore not the kind of thing I expect to be casually dropped into an otherwise-unrelated comment.
If you want a vaguer term, some common options include “bad actors” or “people acting in bad faith”. “Dark-triad-ish people” would also have made more sense to me and made me way less skeptical on a first read.)