[Edit: this was in response to the original version of the parent comment, not the new edited version]
Strong −1, the last line in particular seems deeply inappropriate given the live possibility that these events were caused by large-scale fraud on the part of FTX, and I’m disappointed that so many people endorsed it. (Maybe because the reasons to suspect fraud weren’t flagged in original post?) At a point where the integrity of leading figures in the movement has been called into question, it is particularly important that we hold ourselves to high standards rather than reflexively falling back on tribalist instincts.
Several people, including you, told me not to post this initially. To me that felt like “we should not do thing that damage FTX’s chances in an involving situation”. I’m not accusing, just confused—it feels hard to square that with this reply.
My preferences here are that people (and in particular the EA community):
Don’t support (what could potentially be) fraud.
Don’t exacerbate bank runs by making overly strong claims about likelihood of bad outcomes (whether or not there is underlying fraud—either way expectations of collapse can be self-fulfilling).
(Less important) Remain careful about epistemics (e.g. avoid making big claims about impacts on long-term strategy from a state of severe uncertainty).
And then, subject to the constraints above, I’d like people to be as well-informed as possible. I think that these are pretty reasonable preferences and that I’ve behaved consistently with them.
I really take issue with #2 here. Bank run exacerbation saved my friend’s life savings. Expectations of collapse can save your life if, you know, there’s a collapse.
It really seems insanely cruel to say we shouldn’t inform people because it might be bad for FTX (namely in the event of insolvency). Where are our priorities? I’m very glad that my friends did not observe your #2 preference here.
Of course the best way to help FTX against a bank run would have been to deposit your own funds at the first sign of distress. As of writing I think it’s still not too late!
Maybe I’m misunderstanding bank runs, but as I understand it, they happen because
the institution that is holding other people’s money doesn’t have all that money in liquid form
they are unable to give it back if everybody tries to deposit it at once
when this happens, the institution runs out of money and many people, who didn’t withdraw their cash in time, lose all their deposits
I think the reason Richard listed #2 as a preference is that there might still be hope that FTX doesn’t run out of money in the first place and no one loses their deposits.
However, it might be FTX will run out of money either way. In that case, speeding up the bank run will lead some people to get more their money back, but only because they pick it up before other people do. In the end it’s a zero-sum game, because FTX only has a limited amount of liquid currency. If my model is correct, then there is no net benefit in speeding up the bank run.
I would like to be involved in the version of EAs where we look after eachother’s basic wellness even if it’s bad for FTX or other FTX depositors. I think people will find this version of EA more emotionally safe and inspiring.
To me there is just no normative difference between trying to suppress information and actively telling people they should go deposit on FTX when distress occurred (without communicating any risks involved), knowing that there was a good chance they’d get totally boned if they did so. Under your model this would be no net detriment, but it would also just be sociopathic.
Yes the version of EA where people suppress this information, rather than actively promote deposits, is safer. But both are quite cruel and not something I could earnestly suggest to a friend that they devote their lives to.
Hm, yeah I guess my intuition is the opposite. To me, one of the central parts of effective altruism is that it’s impartial, meaning we shouldn’t put some people’s welfare over other’s.
I think in this case it’s particularly important to be impartial, because EA is a group of people that benefitted a lot from FTX, so it seems wrong for us to try to transfer the harms it is now causing onto other people.
(as an aside it also seems quite unusual to apply this impartiality to the finances of EAs. If EAs were going to be financially impartial it seems like we would not really encourage trying to earn money in competitive financially zero sum ways such as a quant finance career or crypto trading)
Aspiring to be impartially altruistic doesn’t mean we should shank eachother. The so-impartial-we-will-harvest-your-organs-and-steal-your-money version of EA has no future as a grassroots movement or even room to grow as far as I can tell.
This community norm strategy works if you determine that retaining socioeconomically normal people doesn’t actually matter and you just want to incubate billionaires, but I guess we have to hope the next billionare is not so (allegedly) impartial towards their users’ welfare.
Seriously, imagine dedicating your life to EA and then finding out you lost your life savings because one group of EAs defrauded you and the other top EAs decided you shouldn’t be alerted about it for as long as possible specifically because it might lead to you reaching safety. Of course none of the in-the-know people decided to put up their own money to defend against bank run, just decided it would be best if you kept doing so.
In that situation I have to say I would just go and never look back.
I strongly expect them to be. This situation is looking a lot like a disaster for EA. The leaders of EA orgs should be taking this very seriously, especialy the main EA orgs.
I’d expect to see a bunch of press releases and blog posts in the next 1-2 weeks or so.
Question, but why is it bad to wish well on people impacted by this? I get it, there’s a whole lot of rumors about fraud, but why is even the very basic norm of wishing well viewed as a bad thing?
This is true. My original comment has been edited to clarify my intent (as was later mentioned in a reply). The reference to thanks did more to confuse than to support. My apologies for the confusion.
As for the allegations of large-scale fraud: Yes, you’re correct that the situation has evolved several times, hence the numerous rephrases. Though, I am currently uncertain regarding whether fraud actually occurred. That said, I certainly agree that we should hold people to a high standard of ethical conduct.
[Edit: this was in response to the original version of the parent comment, not the new edited version]
Strong −1, the last line in particular seems deeply inappropriate given the live possibility that these events were caused by large-scale fraud on the part of FTX, and I’m disappointed that so many people endorsed it. (Maybe because the reasons to suspect fraud weren’t flagged in original post?) At a point where the integrity of leading figures in the movement has been called into question, it is particularly important that we hold ourselves to high standards rather than reflexively falling back on tribalist instincts.
Several people, including you, told me not to post this initially. To me that felt like “we should not do thing that damage FTX’s chances in an involving situation”. I’m not accusing, just confused—it feels hard to square that with this reply.
My preferences here are that people (and in particular the EA community):
Don’t support (what could potentially be) fraud.
Don’t exacerbate bank runs by making overly strong claims about likelihood of bad outcomes (whether or not there is underlying fraud—either way expectations of collapse can be self-fulfilling).
(Less important) Remain careful about epistemics (e.g. avoid making big claims about impacts on long-term strategy from a state of severe uncertainty).
And then, subject to the constraints above, I’d like people to be as well-informed as possible. I think that these are pretty reasonable preferences and that I’ve behaved consistently with them.
I really take issue with #2 here. Bank run exacerbation saved my friend’s life savings. Expectations of collapse can save your life if, you know, there’s a collapse.
It really seems insanely cruel to say we shouldn’t inform people because it might be bad for FTX (namely in the event of insolvency). Where are our priorities? I’m very glad that my friends did not observe your #2 preference here.
Of course the best way to help FTX against a bank run would have been to deposit your own funds at the first sign of distress. As of writing I think it’s still not too late!
Maybe I’m misunderstanding bank runs, but as I understand it, they happen because
the institution that is holding other people’s money doesn’t have all that money in liquid form
they are unable to give it back if everybody tries to deposit it at once
when this happens, the institution runs out of money and many people, who didn’t withdraw their cash in time, lose all their deposits
I think the reason Richard listed #2 as a preference is that there might still be hope that FTX doesn’t run out of money in the first place and no one loses their deposits.
However, it might be FTX will run out of money either way. In that case, speeding up the bank run will lead some people to get more their money back, but only because they pick it up before other people do. In the end it’s a zero-sum game, because FTX only has a limited amount of liquid currency. If my model is correct, then there is no net benefit in speeding up the bank run.
I would like to be involved in the version of EAs where we look after eachother’s basic wellness even if it’s bad for FTX or other FTX depositors. I think people will find this version of EA more emotionally safe and inspiring.
To me there is just no normative difference between trying to suppress information and actively telling people they should go deposit on FTX when distress occurred (without communicating any risks involved), knowing that there was a good chance they’d get totally boned if they did so. Under your model this would be no net detriment, but it would also just be sociopathic.
Yes the version of EA where people suppress this information, rather than actively promote deposits, is safer. But both are quite cruel and not something I could earnestly suggest to a friend that they devote their lives to.
Hm, yeah I guess my intuition is the opposite. To me, one of the central parts of effective altruism is that it’s impartial, meaning we shouldn’t put some people’s welfare over other’s.
I think in this case it’s particularly important to be impartial, because EA is a group of people that benefitted a lot from FTX, so it seems wrong for us to try to transfer the harms it is now causing onto other people.
(as an aside it also seems quite unusual to apply this impartiality to the finances of EAs. If EAs were going to be financially impartial it seems like we would not really encourage trying to earn money in competitive financially zero sum ways such as a quant finance career or crypto trading)
Aspiring to be impartially altruistic doesn’t mean we should shank eachother. The so-impartial-we-will-harvest-your-organs-and-steal-your-money version of EA has no future as a grassroots movement or even room to grow as far as I can tell.
This community norm strategy works if you determine that retaining socioeconomically normal people doesn’t actually matter and you just want to incubate billionaires, but I guess we have to hope the next billionare is not so (allegedly) impartial towards their users’ welfare.
Seriously, imagine dedicating your life to EA and then finding out you lost your life savings because one group of EAs defrauded you and the other top EAs decided you shouldn’t be alerted about it for as long as possible specifically because it might lead to you reaching safety. Of course none of the in-the-know people decided to put up their own money to defend against bank run, just decided it would be best if you kept doing so.
In that situation I have to say I would just go and never look back.
Personally, when I first saw the news, I really wasn’t expecting fraud.
At this point, the recent news hasn’t been looking good, and it seems like a possibility.
If it comes out there was fraud and the team did illegal activity, then that should clearly be taken seriously.
+1 on both counts, developments today have definitely shifted my guesses for what happened, though I’m overall just pretty confused and uncertain!
I hope CEA are looking at how to protect EA’s reputation from this.
I always thought it was a bad idea for SBF to try to make himself the face of EA.
I strongly expect them to be. This situation is looking a lot like a disaster for EA. The leaders of EA orgs should be taking this very seriously, especialy the main EA orgs.
I’d expect to see a bunch of press releases and blog posts in the next 1-2 weeks or so.
Question, but why is it bad to wish well on people impacted by this? I get it, there’s a whole lot of rumors about fraud, but why is even the very basic norm of wishing well viewed as a bad thing?
I think the comment was edited after this reply and the sentence referred was deleted.
It isn’t.
Sharmake—Erme is correct. The original comment was edited for clarity.
Unendorsed my own comment.
This is true. My original comment has been edited to clarify my intent (as was later mentioned in a reply). The reference to thanks did more to confuse than to support. My apologies for the confusion.
As for the allegations of large-scale fraud: Yes, you’re correct that the situation has evolved several times, hence the numerous rephrases. Though, I am currently uncertain regarding whether fraud actually occurred. That said, I certainly agree that we should hold people to a high standard of ethical conduct.