Thanks for sharing this! Sorry if I’m being dense or unnecessarily persnickety, but was Will aware or unaware the draft was intended to be confidential when he read it? I’m realizing that when I first read the post, I thought the answer must be “aware” (because there was a blinking “keep confidential” at the top of the email), but now see that which email was forwarded is unclear, so maybe my initial understanding was inaccurate.
Apologies if I’m just being paranoid in light of recent events (and I hate to reopen/relitigate an unpleasant past incident, recognize that no one’s perfect and mistakes happen, etc.), but I find this story (or at least my original understanding of the story) unsettling and the context seems important.
FWIW: I’ve known Julia for nearly 10 years. She is scrupulously honest and careful. I would bet all the money I have (literally not figuratively) that she just made an honest mistake. I also don’t understand how this is relevant to the current complaint (FTX). This happened years ago and she’s already publically commented on it and apologized.
Edited to add: I am seeing a pattern where commentaries lately pull out individual mistakes from any time frame and of any type to support a broader image of EA as committing malfeasance. I think this is epistemically shaky and beneath the standard of kind and collaborative criticism, I broadly hope for from members of this community.
Second edit: I’ve added a strikethrough after my husband pointed out some language in our Terms of Service.
While I respect the inside view information you would have about Julia Wise’s personality given your position, you should keep in mind that what you’re saying is exactly what William MacAskill would have told us about Sam Bankman-Fried two months ago.
I found her apology unpersuasive and the events surrounding the publication of Guzey’s post, including MacAskill’s behavior, were quite strange. I wouldn’t say I’m confident of anything but I wouldn’t be surprised if leaking Guzey’s private draft was planned on their part.
Ooh, touche… Like 5k to AMF that she didn’t intentionally forward it knowing it was confidential and instead made an innocent mistake? Any more than that and I’m sleeping in the shed… ;)
I would personally strongly prefer a bet where the money ends up either in my pocket or in a charity of my choice.
Initially I was asking against how much you would bet al your money, i.e., against $1, $10, $50, etc, i.e., how much I would have to bet on my side. But I think you answered the other side, i.e., how much you would bet on your side?
didn’t intentionally forward it knowing it was confidential and instead made an innocent mistake
So I agree that in particular seems very likely (though I’d still bet, e.g. $1 against your $5k). I’m more interested in betting that at some point between the initial mistake and the post being published she had some “deceitful intent” (chosen so as to mean the opposite of an “honest mistake”).
To resolve this, we could either ask Julia, or we could ask three persons we both trust about which one is more likely.
I would bet all the money I have (literally not figuratively)
Being willing to bet the money you have is much less strong evidence than the odds you would bet at. I too would be willing to bet very large amounts of money … if offered sufficiently high odds. The key issue is what odds you would make the bet at. Are you 95% confident? 99% confident? 99.99% confident?
(This is of course rather moot if you are not actually willing to bet.)
edited to add: note that the Kelly betting formula does not apply in a simple way here because for most young people ‘all the money they have’ is a small fraction of the net present value of their future income.
I also don’t understand how this is relevant to the current complaint (FTX). This happened years ago and she’s already publically commented on it and apologized.
So it’s relevant to me because I only put two-and-two together about this after the FTX implosion. As I said in my initial post:
Lots of the reasons I am less approving of EA now than I was prior to FTX collapse are things I could have known.
My point isn’t that this is related to FTX. My point is prior to the collapse I didn’t know some things about the EA community. Now I know them and I think less of the community. My general point is it seems absolutely nuts to me that Duncan can have an unchanged opinion of the community unless he already knew a bunch of things I was unaware of.
Following up on my bet offer below, seems good to either figure out the odds, or to edit the “would bet all the money I have (literally not figuratively)” claim. No rush on my end, though, I’ll follow up in a few days.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hYh6jKBsKXH8mWwtc/a-contact-person-for-the-ea-community?commentId=h6ra3qdAGr5W2zcwE, linked from https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/our-mistakes
Thanks for sharing this! Sorry if I’m being dense or unnecessarily persnickety, but was Will aware or unaware the draft was intended to be confidential when he read it? I’m realizing that when I first read the post, I thought the answer must be “aware” (because there was a blinking “keep confidential” at the top of the email), but now see that which email was forwarded is unclear, so maybe my initial understanding was inaccurate.
Apologies if I’m just being paranoid in light of recent events (and I hate to reopen/relitigate an unpleasant past incident, recognize that no one’s perfect and mistakes happen, etc.), but I find this story (or at least my original understanding of the story) unsettling and the context seems important.
FWIW: I’ve known Julia for nearly 10 years. She is scrupulously honest and careful. I would bet
all the money I have (literally not figuratively)that she just made an honest mistake. I also don’t understand how this is relevant to the current complaint (FTX). This happened years ago and she’s already publically commented on it and apologized.Edited to add: I am seeing a pattern where commentaries lately pull out individual mistakes from any time frame and of any type to support a broader image of EA as committing malfeasance. I think this is epistemically shaky and beneath the standard of kind and collaborative criticism, I broadly hope for from members of this community.
Second edit: I’ve added a strikethrough after my husband pointed out some language in our Terms of Service.
Josh was asking about Will, not Julia.
While I respect the inside view information you would have about Julia Wise’s personality given your position, you should keep in mind that what you’re saying is exactly what William MacAskill would have told us about Sam Bankman-Fried two months ago.
I found her apology unpersuasive and the events surrounding the publication of Guzey’s post, including MacAskill’s behavior, were quite strange. I wouldn’t say I’m confident of anything but I wouldn’t be surprised if leaking Guzey’s private draft was planned on their part.
That she is honest is evidence that it was an honest mistake. That she is careful is evidence that it was not.
Against how much?
Edited to add: PM’d the person to offer to figure out a bet.
Yea—My guess is that KMF didn’t mean that part fully literally. Clarifying is good though.
Ooh, touche… Like 5k to AMF that she didn’t intentionally forward it knowing it was confidential and instead made an innocent mistake? Any more than that and I’m sleeping in the shed… ;)
Apparently my wife has been making huge bets on the internet with money from a hidden ‘fiat@’ account.
When you forget bae also reads the EA Forum...
I would personally strongly prefer a bet where the money ends up either in my pocket or in a charity of my choice.
Initially I was asking against how much you would bet al your money, i.e., against $1, $10, $50, etc, i.e., how much I would have to bet on my side. But I think you answered the other side, i.e., how much you would bet on your side?
So I agree that in particular seems very likely (though I’d still bet, e.g. $1 against your $5k). I’m more interested in betting that at some point between the initial mistake and the post being published she had some “deceitful intent” (chosen so as to mean the opposite of an “honest mistake”).
To resolve this, we could either ask Julia, or we could ask three persons we both trust about which one is more likely.
Going to sleep now, will follow up tomorrow
Being willing to bet the money you have is much less strong evidence than the odds you would bet at. I too would be willing to bet very large amounts of money … if offered sufficiently high odds. The key issue is what odds you would make the bet at. Are you 95% confident? 99% confident? 99.99% confident?
(This is of course rather moot if you are not actually willing to bet.)
edited to add: note that the Kelly betting formula does not apply in a simple way here because for most young people ‘all the money they have’ is a small fraction of the net present value of their future income.
So it’s relevant to me because I only put two-and-two together about this after the FTX implosion. As I said in my initial post:
My point isn’t that this is related to FTX. My point is prior to the collapse I didn’t know some things about the EA community. Now I know them and I think less of the community. My general point is it seems absolutely nuts to me that Duncan can have an unchanged opinion of the community unless he already knew a bunch of things I was unaware of.
Following up on my bet offer below, seems good to either figure out the odds, or to edit the “would bet all the money I have (literally not figuratively)” claim. No rush on my end, though, I’ll follow up in a few days.