Curious—my understanding is that he’s doubling down on the utilitarian calculus here. The “ethics” he’s talking about here are the deontological constraints that many consequentialist/utilitarian EAs say provide an external check and balance. He’s saying those guardrails are “just signaling and status games” for him.
This was my understanding as well, that he actually believes in utilitarianism and was only cynical about individual public stances like the value of regulation or the importance of transparency.
What was the end game here then? I struggle to see how one can say this shows that SBF practices utilitarianism beyond lip service.
You can only make assumptions as to what his future plans were. His tangible actions thus far have shown more malicious forethought than poor judgement in my opinion, or perhaps a bit of both (as the man himself says the world is not black and white).
If he thought that there’s no value in regulation than there’s far less negatively impactful ways to go about skirting it than stealing from the commoners. I dunno… maybe use the immense wealth accrued to advocate for real changes in the regulatory bodies. Is that not what a true utilitarian would choose?
Would genuinely like to hear why people disagree that is what SBF is referring to when he speaks of “ethics”. I believe most consequentialist EAs mean it when they say ethical rules keep their decision making in check. But SBF seems to disavow that as a personal choice—so if I’m misreading or misunderstanding this, open to hearing an alternate reading.
Edit: leaving the original tweet below, but I no longer endorse this take.
SBF is a lot more cynical/nihilistic/immoral than I had suspected.
I think people are overrating the causal role EA ideology played here.
This doesn’t sound like someone for whom utilitarian calculus was a decisive factor.
“It’s only wrong if you lose”
“If you win it doesn’t matter what your morals were.”
“Being upright/principled and losing is bad”
“Ethical talk is just PR”
“Ethics is itself just signalling and status games”
What a bleak world view.
Curious—my understanding is that he’s doubling down on the utilitarian calculus here. The “ethics” he’s talking about here are the deontological constraints that many consequentialist/utilitarian EAs say provide an external check and balance. He’s saying those guardrails are “just signaling and status games” for him.
This was my understanding as well, that he actually believes in utilitarianism and was only cynical about individual public stances like the value of regulation or the importance of transparency.
What was the end game here then? I struggle to see how one can say this shows that SBF practices utilitarianism beyond lip service.
You can only make assumptions as to what his future plans were. His tangible actions thus far have shown more malicious forethought than poor judgement in my opinion, or perhaps a bit of both (as the man himself says the world is not black and white).
If he thought that there’s no value in regulation than there’s far less negatively impactful ways to go about skirting it than stealing from the commoners. I dunno… maybe use the immense wealth accrued to advocate for real changes in the regulatory bodies. Is that not what a true utilitarian would choose?
Would genuinely like to hear why people disagree that is what SBF is referring to when he speaks of “ethics”. I believe most consequentialist EAs mean it when they say ethical rules keep their decision making in check. But SBF seems to disavow that as a personal choice—so if I’m misreading or misunderstanding this, open to hearing an alternate reading.
I currently think SBF was just lying about not caring about ethics.
I think winning here = maximising EV, and “ethical talk” is the deontological constraints on utilitarianism