My understanding is that the answer is basically 2.
Iād love to share more details but I havenāt gotten consent from the person who told me about those conversations yet, and even if I were willing to share without consent Iām not confident enough of my recollection of the details I was told about those conversations when they happened to pass that recollection along. I hope to be able to say more soon.
EDIT: Iāve gotten a response and that person would prefer me not to go into more specifics currently, so Iām going to respect that. I do understand the frustration with all of the vagueness. Iām very hopeful that the EA leaders who were told about all of this will voluntarily come forward about that fact in the coming days. If they donāt, I can promise that they will be publicly named eventually.
My guess is different parts of leadership. I donāt think many of the people I talked to promoted SBF a lot. E.g. see my earlier paragraph on a lot of this promotion being done by the more UK focused branches that I talk much less to.
That could very well be and there are a lot of moving parts. That is why I think it is important for people who supposedly warned leadership to say who was told and what they were told. If we are going to unravel this this all feels like necessary information.
The people who are staying quiet about who they told have carefully considered reasons for doing so, and Iād encourage people to try to respect that, even if itās hard to understand from outside.
My hope is that the information will be made public from the other side. EA leaders who were told details about the events at early Alameda know exactly who they are, and they can volunteer that information at any time. It will be made public eventually one way or another.
The incentives for them to do so include 1) modelling healthy transparency norms, 2) avoiding looking bad when it comes out anyway, 3) just generally doing the right thing.
I personally commit to making my knowledge about it public within a year. (I could probably commit to a shorter time frame than that, thatās just what Iām sure Iām happy to commit to having given it only a momentās thought.)
If insiders were making serious accusations about his character to EA leadership and they went on to promote him that would be weird to me. Especially if many people did it which is what has been claimed. Of course I have no idea who āleadershipā is because no one is being specific.
To be fair sometimes people make accusations that are incorrect? Your decision procedure does need to allow for the possibility of not taking a given accusation seriously. I donāt know who knew what and how reasonable a conclusion this was for any given person given their state of knowledge, in this case, but also people do get this wrong sometimes, this doesnāt seem implausible to me.
My decision procedure does allow for that and I have lots of uncertainties, but it feels that given many insiders claim to have warned people in positions of power about this and Sam got actively promoted anyway. If multiple people with intimate knowledge of someone came to you and told you that they thought person X was of bad character you wouldnāt have to believe them hook line and sinker to be judicious about promoting that person.
Maybe this is the most plausible of the 3 and I shouldnāt have called it super implausible, but it doesnāt seem very plausible for me, especially from people in a movement that takes risks more seriously than any other that I know.
How can both of these be true:
You (and others, if all of the accounts Iāve been reading about are true) told EA leadership about a deep mistrust of SBF.
EA decided to hold up and promote SBF as a paragon of EA values and on of the few prominent faces in the EA community.
If both of those are true, how many logical possibilities are there?
The accounts that people told EA leadership are false.
The accounts are true and EA leadership didnāt take these accounts seriously.
EA leadership took the accounts seriously, but still proceeded to market SBF.
I find them all super implausible so I donāt know what to think!
My understanding is that the answer is basically 2.
Iād love to share more details but I havenāt gotten consent from the person who told me about those conversations yet, and even if I were willing to share without consent Iām not confident enough of my recollection of the details I was told about those conversations when they happened to pass that recollection along. I hope to be able to say more soon.
EDIT: Iāve gotten a response and that person would prefer me not to go into more specifics currently, so Iām going to respect that. I do understand the frustration with all of the vagueness. Iām very hopeful that the EA leaders who were told about all of this will voluntarily come forward about that fact in the coming days. If they donāt, I can promise that they will be publicly named eventually.
My guess is different parts of leadership. I donāt think many of the people I talked to promoted SBF a lot. E.g. see my earlier paragraph on a lot of this promotion being done by the more UK focused branches that I talk much less to.
That could very well be and there are a lot of moving parts. That is why I think it is important for people who supposedly warned leadership to say who was told and what they were told. If we are going to unravel this this all feels like necessary information.
The people who are staying quiet about who they told have carefully considered reasons for doing so, and Iād encourage people to try to respect that, even if itās hard to understand from outside.
My hope is that the information will be made public from the other side. EA leaders who were told details about the events at early Alameda know exactly who they are, and they can volunteer that information at any time. It will be made public eventually one way or another.
I respect that people who arenāt saying what they know have carefully considered reasons for doing so.
I am not confident it will come from the other side as it hasnāt to date and there is no incentive to do so.
May I ask why you believe it will be made public eventually? I truly hope that is the case.
The incentives for them to do so include 1) modelling healthy transparency norms, 2) avoiding looking bad when it comes out anyway, 3) just generally doing the right thing.
I personally commit to making my knowledge about it public within a year. (I could probably commit to a shorter time frame than that, thatās just what Iām sure Iām happy to commit to having given it only a momentās thought.)
What do you find super implausible about 2?
If insiders were making serious accusations about his character to EA leadership and they went on to promote him that would be weird to me. Especially if many people did it which is what has been claimed. Of course I have no idea who āleadershipā is because no one is being specific.
To be fair sometimes people make accusations that are incorrect? Your decision procedure does need to allow for the possibility of not taking a given accusation seriously. I donāt know who knew what and how reasonable a conclusion this was for any given person given their state of knowledge, in this case, but also people do get this wrong sometimes, this doesnāt seem implausible to me.
My decision procedure does allow for that and I have lots of uncertainties, but it feels that given many insiders claim to have warned people in positions of power about this and Sam got actively promoted anyway. If multiple people with intimate knowledge of someone came to you and told you that they thought person X was of bad character you wouldnāt have to believe them hook line and sinker to be judicious about promoting that person.
Maybe this is the most plausible of the 3 and I shouldnāt have called it super implausible, but it doesnāt seem very plausible for me, especially from people in a movement that takes risks more seriously than any other that I know.