I guess there are multiple aspects to this. While he might seem to be open at the cost of personal legal risk, it might be that he’s also telling an inaccurate story of what happened. (EDIT: slightly edited the wording regarding openness/good faith in this one paragraph after reading Lukas’s take)
(Heavy speculation below)
A crucial point given SBF’s significant involvement in EA and interest in utilitarianism is whether he actually believed in all of it, and how strongly.
There are some signs he believed in it strongly: being associated with EA rather than a more popular and commonly accepted movement, being very knowledgeable about utilitarianism, early involvement, donations etc.
If he did believe in it strongly, it could be that this is just him “doing [what he believes is] the most good” by potentially being dishonest about some things (whether this was due to bad intentions), in order to, perhaps (in his mind), deflect the harm he’s caused EA and the future, at the cost of personal legal risk (which is minor in comparison from the utilitarian perspective). (Then again, at the same time, another (naive) utilitarian strategy might be to say “muhahaha I was evil all along!” and get people to think that he used EA as a cover and that he isn’t representative of it? If that also works (in expectation, to him), I’m not so sure why he picked one over the other.)
This is all speculative, and a bit unusual for the average defendant, but SBF is quite unusual (as is EA, to be fair) and we might have to consider these unusual possibilities.
I guess there are multiple aspects to this. While he might seem to be open at the cost of personal legal risk, it might be that he’s also telling an inaccurate story of what happened. (EDIT: slightly edited the wording regarding openness/good faith in this one paragraph after reading Lukas’s take)
(Heavy speculation below)
A crucial point given SBF’s significant involvement in EA and interest in utilitarianism is whether he actually believed in all of it, and how strongly.
There are some signs he believed in it strongly: being associated with EA rather than a more popular and commonly accepted movement, being very knowledgeable about utilitarianism, early involvement, donations etc.
If he did believe in it strongly, it could be that this is just him “doing [what he believes is] the most good” by potentially being dishonest about some things (whether this was due to bad intentions), in order to, perhaps (in his mind), deflect the harm he’s caused EA and the future, at the cost of personal legal risk (which is minor in comparison from the utilitarian perspective). (Then again, at the same time, another (naive) utilitarian strategy might be to say “muhahaha I was evil all along!” and get people to think that he used EA as a cover and that he isn’t representative of it? If that also works (in expectation, to him), I’m not so sure why he picked one over the other.)
This is all speculative, and a bit unusual for the average defendant, but SBF is quite unusual (as is EA, to be fair) and we might have to consider these unusual possibilities.