Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )

Karma: 70

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 14 Nov 2022 6:49 UTC
−4 points
8 ∶ 12
in reply to: Perkins’s comment on: Announcing Nonlinear Emergency Funding
Here is one instance of what I consider vote manipulation.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/cTQfWpobqk4nDWsfG/new-use-the-nonlinear-library-to-listen-to-the-top-ea-forum#comments
I interpret the situation as an incident that Kat did not honor her word about content, Kirsten was upset, and Kat suppressed Kirsten’s concerns. As you can see, Charles He (who seems otherwise unintelligent) pointed this out clearly.
I grudge providing this, and I do so because of interest which I think is disproportionate, as this is not substantive compared to the rest of the claims. Frankly, I assumed this voting behavior was common knowledge.
What links here?
- Definitely Not Charles He.'s comment on Lizka’s Quick takes by Lizka (21 Dec 2022 4:16 UTC; -5 points)

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 14 Nov 2022 6:44 UTC
−1 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: Aaron Gertler’s comment on: Announcing Nonlinear Emergency Funding
I am satisfied with the truth, accuracy and confidence of my statements in this post. Based on some of the responses from Non-linear, I would probably change my content to increase my concerns somewhat.
I’m not immediately able to say anything useful about the meta question of anonymous comments—this seems extremely complicated and I probably might not agree if I think about it.
I might be anonymous (?) right now. I have unique reasons that I am anonymous, and I might not be for long.
I am interested if you have contravening information about my representations on my account, or any other concerns. Please write them publicly.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 14 Nov 2022 3:41 UTC
2 points
8 ∶ 3
in reply to: pseudonym’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
What’s disappointing is not that Eliezer can’t make even a minor acknowledgement for the relevance of the models or experiences of others, that he is probably outright wrong on the substantial issues, but that Eliezer struggles to communicate and hold a thread in this conversation.
His counterpart is a literal domain expert and maybe very valuable talent to EA. (As a statement considering the totality of the votes and writing) this person is being badgered under what to any outsider should be the scary or unclear norms and power structures of the EA community on its own forum, while Eliezer’s de facto community keeps him afloat.
Elizier’s behavior is unacceptable for a funded, junior community builder, much less a senior leader.
Imagine a newcomer witnessing this, much less experiencing this.
What links here?
- Definitely Not Charles He.'s comment on Lizka’s Quick takes by Lizka (21 Dec 2022 4:10 UTC; -17 points)

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 23:59 UTC
40 points
19 ∶ 6
in reply to: anonymous-7’s comment on: Announcing Nonlinear Emergency Funding
What you did was valuable, useful and brave.
With difficulty, trying to communicate in a way that gets at the heart of the issue and not pick out facts and tries to be fair:
My guess (50% true/certain) is that it’s probably fair to say that Kat and Emerson have a bit of a hustle vibe (I mean look at Emerson’s description).
Like I would do, and you would do, they try to maximize their local success. However, their output hasn’t been extremely high. There might be a small departure from some EA cooperate norms, that might be due cultural differences.
With the greatest uncertainty, but the most importance?: I think the potentially major issue is that by trying to sit as a meta org, Nonlinear can attract inflows of EA talent that scales with the movement (and not their ability), and also self-replicate. That is bad for movement health and incentives. EA is also small enough (and the course has seen a negative trajectory) that this could be an issue, e.g. the lemons sit in the aftermath, there’s a path dependency. The communication/publicity maximization adds to this concern.
As this thread shows, they are unpopular enough at this point, that I think the concerns are probably minor, like top #30-50 item on the list of things that CEA or OP needs to worry about in the next year or two.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 23:22 UTC
32 points
16 ∶ 11
in reply to: Robert Z’s comment on: Announcing Nonlinear Emergency Funding
More minorly, they also manipulate things like voting scores on the EA forum (and pay a lot of attention to online presence).
More substantively but with greater uncertainly:
Back in 2021, there were a bunch of potential EA meta orgs, that are essentially natural monopolies, there can only be one. As another feature, these meta EA orgs naturally have to attract/involve a lot of EA resources and talent. The nature of these potential orgs is that they have less legible or viewable output (than say, distributing mosquito nets or producing research).
1+ grantmakers at a major EA grantmaking organization said it’s known people didn’t have ideal views on them (but suggested I meet with Kat because we had to, they were in the space).
After the meeting, I got a bit of an elbowing/redirection vibe, which in hindsight was extremely not justifiable by their output.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 23:10 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: arthrowaway’s comment on: The FTX Future Fund team has resigned
Here is some questions/content that might be interesting to discuss if you’re interested?

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 23:09 UTC
−1 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: nbouscal’s comment on: The FTX Future Fund team has resigned
Here is some questions/content that might be interesting to discuss?
(You might not want to given if your fatigue though.)

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 23:07 UTC
10 points
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: ftxthrowaway’s comment on: The FTX Future Fund team has resigned
Can you answer two questions related to the source of SBF’s early business wealth?
Were the Kimchi arb returns real?
As you know, the “Kimchi premium” was this difference in BTC price between Korea (Japan?) and the rest of the world.
The narrative is that SBF arbed this price difference to make many millions and create his early wealth.
The Sequoia puff piece makes this cute story:
Curious, SBF had started looking into crypto—and almost immediately noticed something strange. Bitcoin was trading at a higher price in Japan and Korea than it was in the U.S. In theory, this should never happen because it represents a riskless profit opportunity—in other words, a free lunch. One simply buys Bitcoin at the lower price, sells it at the higher price, and pockets the difference. Jane Street built an empire on high-frequency trades that took advantage of fraction-of-a-cent price differences. But here was Bitcoin, trading at around $15,000 in South Korea: an unheard-of 50 percent price premium.
After SBF’s fall, Twitter speculation says this is dubious.
This is because the cause of the Kimchi premium was strict legal capital controls, and the liquidity was orders of magnitude too small to produce the wealth in SBF later used. At best, SBF was actively breaking laws by this trade. The amount of money he could make may have been too small to justify the narratives around his early success.
Do you have any comments on the above?
Jaan Tallinn investment
Tallinn later ended up funding SBF with $50M.
What would you say to the speculation that it was this funding, and not the Kimchi arb , that really launched SBF’s career?
If this is mostly true, the takeaway is that there’s little cleverness or competency being expressed here here?
It seems like power, money and access led to SBF’s success. This theme would fit with SBF’s later behavior, with bluffing and overaweing spend.
That tradition seems hollow and bad, maybe contagious to the things that SBF created or touched.
This could be useful in some way? It seems like the vector EA or EA PR could take, could counter this.
What links here?

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 6:52 UTC
−10 points
2 ∶ 4
in reply to: Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
As of writing, I want to point out that Eliezer’s comments, which are a probably strained digression to explain his original comment (and include speculation of a voting ring against him ???), has the following vote score.
My comments below this have:
This is not only not justifiable by content, this is literally suppressing criticism of a promoted EA figure on the EA forum.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 5:42 UTC
−19 points
1 ∶ 2
in reply to: Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
I think this was downvoted in the first 10 seconds, I am bumping this so this gets read.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 5:32 UTC
10 points
4 ∶ 6
in reply to: John_Maxwell’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
Morale is low right now and senior EA figures are occupied and some have come under direct criticism, whether justified or not. In this environment, it’s difficult to communicate or express leadership. Only the CEA community health team seems to be taking the initiative, which must be very difficult and this is heroic.
In this situation there is often gardening of the online space that tends to be performed by marginal actors. LW and MIRI has been left mostly unscathed by the FTX disaster, and now, Eliezer and Rob B (professional communicator employed by MIRI) are highly active. In the sense of advancing their cause, that’s OK and natural. They are also helpful in tempering gardening attempts by other actors.
Note that I don’t think Eliezer’s representations, such downplaying his interactions with FTX (he might have been a regrantor and was probably more actively jockeying/seeking money than it seems, which is understandable) and other statements are entirely truthful or disinterested.
More importantly, the low opinion of Eliezer’s contributions is well known, relevant and should be communicated. (The quality of his output and MIRI was considered low, which is why they received relatively little funding and were unscathed^[1]).
1. ^
  The fact they were not funded by a bad person is not a sign of virtue or quality, to say this in “LW speak”, see Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 3:31 UTC
−2 points
4 ∶ 6
in reply to: Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
Note that my comment is not policing or calling out private actual interpersonal conduct and seems well justified given the parent comment, as well as the wide range of topics discussed. A week ago, I think we all know that I would be voted down for factual, but off-color statements about SBF’s business practices.
Now, here, I make the additional, specific accusation that the existence of Eliezer Yudkowsky as a major public figure in EA is out of proportion to his contributions or his popularity in EA, and is partially supported by de facto organized coordination by a group of people on the LessWrong and Effective Altruism forums.
That is, my comment has been shared on say, private FB groups, Slack, Discord servers with the expected aim of managing this content.
I encourage examination of the view/vote graph and the origin of view/votes for my comment and possibly other content.
I am not attacking the cultures, views to help the world or ways of interpersonal relationships of people close to Eliezer. I do not want Eliezer to be harmed, or reduce his agency to contribute in the ways he wants to.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 2:45 UTC
−8 points
2 ∶ 5
in reply to: Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
This statement has been downvoted and removed from view. I’m pretty skeptical that is helpful.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 2:34 UTC
−13 points
19 ∶ 17
in reply to: EliezerYudkowsky’s comment on: A personal statement on FTX
First of all, this language is wildly unhelpful, even outside of the current situation.
Secondly, this isn’t close to true, and shows ignorance and blasé disregard for a wide range of social and power structures in the real world, such as corporate environments. This is not some leftist social justice statement. Even before the #metoo era, there’s a vast range of sexual conduct that wouldn’t be acceptable for a middle/senior leader.
Finally, you, Eliezer Yudkowsky, are a major part of the problem, with EA, as you put it. Your intellectual contributions are poorly regarded in the real world and across EA. This is not a “sneerclub” view, but by open minded outsiders, and senior EAs across all cause areas. Even in a full AI safety worldview, your recent views/contributions on AI safety have not been positive, and would have been an issue to work around, even without the changes in longtermist funding.
As a heterosexual male who has interacted with many female EAs, I almost never consider any sort of romantic and sexual relationship with any female EA, and absolutely not junior. This is partially the consequence of past events due to misconduct of others, of which I am entirely innocent of. Many other male EAs have similar personal policies, for the same reasons.
As the public content above shows, it is not salacious to say that even this basic idea above is ignored by others. I have plausible reasons to believe this is costly, and I resent the cost the movement bears, carrying on like this, due to this kind of behavior.
Note that this account is anonymous, but not because of a desire to communicate or criticize without retaliation, and my identity will be clear.
What links here?
- Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )'s comment on A personal statement on FTX by William_MacAskill (13 Nov 2022 3:31 UTC; -2 points)
- Definitely Not Charles He.'s comment on Lizka’s Quick takes by Lizka (21 Dec 2022 4:10 UTC; -17 points)

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 1:47 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ )’s comment on: publius’s Shortform
There are truly formidable people and talent in EA causes, or associated with EA. Maybe one situation where a pitch involves EAs, is where their products and concepts are truly valuable, and proved by use by EAs, or virtuous, hard working people trying to improve the world.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 13 Nov 2022 1:42 UTC
1 point
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: RyanCarey’s comment on: publius’s Shortform
they hear multiple VCs telling making strongly negative comments—“effective altruism my ass”, etc. The mood on Twitter is overwhelmingly negative.
Even before November, I can’t imagine using the words “Effective Altruism” as part of central part of a pitch for a for-profit, especially if you thought you had a promising investment. You would show your product/team/customers, etc.
Also, I’m skeptical that a non-profit would ever rely on it’s “EA status” when communicating to non-EA donors. This is based on experience with “neartermist” interventions (ones that developed a lot of external faculty and impressiveness in the last two years, and existed outside of the pre-Nov 2022 longtermist funding environment).
My immediate reaction would be that this VC reaction was prompted by a very poor attempt at grift. But that behavior seems undesirable anyway?

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 12 Nov 2022 21:42 UTC
−10 points
6 ∶ 1
in reply to: Geuss’s comment on: Women and Effective Altruism
I don’t think you will be successful like this, I’m sorry.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 12 Nov 2022 21:22 UTC
14 points
6 ∶ 1
in reply to: Geuss’s comment on: Women and Effective Altruism
I’m saying that it’s unclear how the collapse of FTX, the role of the poly relationships, predatory male sexual behavior, or the culpability of EA culture are linked, despite being welded together into one set of claims in this post. Also, it seems like Caroline E probably had a lot of agency and power (but I’m happy to learn otherwise).
The underlying issue that is motivating this is that there’s many issues and throwing this into this high temperature environment will burn them.
I have a lot of anecdotes that could be useful. To the degree it’s actually true (and writing here is useful; and completely ignoring the values/interests of EA) I’m with you and the OP in stopping this abuse, some aspects of which seems plausible and real to me.
I won’t participate if it turns into a very low quality overreaction or leads to something that consumes a lot of time in EA and doesn’t help women.

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 12 Nov 2022 20:48 UTC
11 points
5 ∶ 0
in reply to: Geuss’s comment on: Women and Effective Altruism
this kind of nepotistic, incestuous work environment is not healthy
The claims in the OP are odious, but having loyal and pliable lieutenants is common for powerful, ambitious people, because it’s useful.
They don’t have to be women and it’s not clear why being in a sexual relationship would be useful for this purpose (it’s probably the opposite).

Anonymous (for unimpressive reasons =[ ) 12 Nov 2022 20:43 UTC
8 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Guy Raveh’s comment on: Some comments on recent FTX-related events
I think this subthread about one person’s beliefs are not that important and may be a distraction.
While the spending of that amount of money now would probably be bad, it’s clear this prize is about informing everyone in EA, and would have had a lot of value about cause prioritization, and truth. This would be valuable to the movement.