I think this could be a nice-to-have, but really, I think it’s too much to ask, ”For every senior EA, we want a long list of exactly each thing they knew about SBF”
This would probably be a massive pain, and much of the key information will be confidential (for example, informants who want to remain anonymous).
My guess is that there were a bunch of flags that were more apparent than nbouscal’s stories.
I do think we should have really useful summaries of the key results. If there were a few people who were complicit or highly negligent, then that should be reported, and appropriate actions taken.
I strongly believe it is hyperrelevant to know who knew what, when so that these people are held to account. I don’t think this is too much to ask, nor does it have to be arduous in the way you described of getting every name with max fidelity. I see so many claims that “key EA members knew what was going on” and never any sort of name associate with it.
I agree this is really important and would really, really want it to be figured out, and key actions taken. I think I’m less focused on all of the information of such a discovery being public, as opposed to much of it being summarized a bit.
I don’t feel like I’m in a good place to give a good answer. First, I haven’t really thought about it nor am I an expert in these sorts of matters.
Second, I’m like several layers deep in funding structures that start with these people. It’s sort of like asking me to publicly write what I love/hate, objectively, about my boss.
I think I could say that I’d expect appropriate actions to look a lot like they do with top companies (mainly ones without lots of known management integrity problems). At these companies, I believe that when some officials are investigated for potential issues, often they’re given no punishment, and sometimes they’re fired. It really depends on the details of the findings.
I think this could be a nice-to-have, but really, I think it’s too much to ask,
”For every senior EA, we want a long list of exactly each thing they knew about SBF”
This would probably be a massive pain, and much of the key information will be confidential (for example, informants who want to remain anonymous).
My guess is that there were a bunch of flags that were more apparent than nbouscal’s stories.
I do think we should have really useful summaries of the key results. If there were a few people who were complicit or highly negligent, then that should be reported, and appropriate actions taken.
I strongly believe it is hyperrelevant to know who knew what, when so that these people are held to account. I don’t think this is too much to ask, nor does it have to be arduous in the way you described of getting every name with max fidelity. I see so many claims that “key EA members knew what was going on” and never any sort of name associate with it.
I agree this is really important and would really, really want it to be figured out, and key actions taken. I think I’m less focused on all of the information of such a discovery being public, as opposed to much of it being summarized a bit.
A summary of sorts is being compiled here:
What would you suggest might be appropriate actions for complicity or negligence?
I don’t feel like I’m in a good place to give a good answer. First, I haven’t really thought about it nor am I an expert in these sorts of matters.
Second, I’m like several layers deep in funding structures that start with these people. It’s sort of like asking me to publicly write what I love/hate, objectively, about my boss.
I think I could say that I’d expect appropriate actions to look a lot like they do with top companies (mainly ones without lots of known management integrity problems). At these companies, I believe that when some officials are investigated for potential issues, often they’re given no punishment, and sometimes they’re fired. It really depends on the details of the findings.