The title of the piece is: “Sam Bankman-Fried, the effective altruist who wasn’t.” I don’t think <the self-styled effective altruist who actually wasn’t one> is an implausible interpretation of that ambiguous title. Other plausible-to-me interpretations include: <the former effective altruist who wasn’t one at the end”>, <the effective altruist who wasn’t a true EA>, etc.
Of course, “EA’s CEO” wasn’t accurate (which the linkposter changed), and I would not assume that the CEO wrote the headline. But I do think a lack of clarity in the headline is at play here.
I don’t think the piece says that.
The title of the piece is: “Sam Bankman-Fried, the effective altruist who wasn’t.” I don’t think <the self-styled effective altruist who actually wasn’t one> is an implausible interpretation of that ambiguous title. Other plausible-to-me interpretations include: <the former effective altruist who wasn’t one at the end”>, <the effective altruist who wasn’t a true EA>, etc.
Of course, “EA’s CEO” wasn’t accurate (which the linkposter changed), and I would not assume that the CEO wrote the headline. But I do think a lack of clarity in the headline is at play here.