Great comment. First comment from new forum member here. Some background: I was EA adjacent for many years, and donated quite a lot of income through an EA organization, and EA people in my community inspired me to go vegan. Still thankful for that. Then I was heavily turned off by the move towards longtermism, which I find objectionable on many grounds (both philosophical and political). This is just to give you some background on where I’m coming from, so read my comment with that in mind.
I would like to pick up on this part: “Assuming (as seems likely to me) that SBF started out with genuine good intentions, my guess is this was hard to anticipate because of a self-conception as “genuinely altruistic” blocked him from the idea he might do wrong”. I think this is true, and I think it’s crucial for the EA community to reflect on these things going forward. It’s the moral licensing or self-licensing effect, which is well described in moral psychology—individuals who are very confident they are doing good may be more likely to engage in bad acts.
I think, however, that the EA community at large in recent years have started to suffer from a kind of intellectual self-licensing as well. The idea that one is very smart and very committed to reason and ethics and good arguments, may make it more likely to overlook some really obvious things. TBH I’ve had this impression of the EA community for quite some time, and this made me turn away from the movement to the degree that I began warning others not to join. In many ways I think I’m fairly ideal “EA material”. I have a master’s degree in philosophy, a PhD in social science, and a heavily idealistic outlook towards life which has led me to devote most of my free time (and much of my resources) to bettering the world—including sending costly signals about commitment by avoiding meat and air travel. I’m also extremely oriented towards rationality as an ideal and I appreciate the power of the better argument.
Still, it has seemed really obvious that these things are both bad and stupid:
cozying up to a billionaire who set up shop in a tax haven and became rich on an unsustainable industry which doesn’t provide real value to anybody
downplaying the very real existential risk of climate change which we can by now be very certain about
downplaying giving directly to the world’s many poor and refocusing on giving money towards fighting imagined future AI overlords, which we cannot be certain about at all
downplaying engaging in politics in order to make societal institutions better and more just
Many here will not agree that any or all of these things are either bad or stupid. I think they are, but I realize that merely stating that I think so will not convince any of you EAs. I realize that I may be wrong as well, at least in my belief that AI overlords will not materialize. The fourth point is also complex of course.
But I am not wrong on the first two points. This has, frankly, been blatantly obvious to most of the “rational & progressive” people outside EA. But here in EA you went along with FTX and crypto for a very long time, and it still seems like many here lack a real appreciation of how bad and threatening climate change actually is. There are exceptions of course, but if you are honest with yourselves you probably know that there is some truth to this. Why?
So my advice going forward is to make this a moment of reflection. Was this really just one guy who did something stupid and dragged others with him? Or does it indicate something about the EA community at large, which it would be wise to reflect upon, if one wants the EA community to remain a force for good?
Please bear with me if this post is not perfectly in line with the norms for discussion here. Even though it may be provocative, it is written with a hope that the EA movement will survive this crisis and come out of it as a real force for good. These are some thoughts written hastily late at night here in my country—Cremer and Kemp make similar points with much better arguments in “Democratizing risk”.
In any case, take care all you who have been affected by this.
Great comment. First comment from new forum member here. Some background: I was EA adjacent for many years, and donated quite a lot of income through an EA organization, and EA people in my community inspired me to go vegan. Still thankful for that. Then I was heavily turned off by the move towards longtermism, which I find objectionable on many grounds (both philosophical and political). This is just to give you some background on where I’m coming from, so read my comment with that in mind.
I would like to pick up on this part: “Assuming (as seems likely to me) that SBF started out with genuine good intentions, my guess is this was hard to anticipate because of a self-conception as “genuinely altruistic” blocked him from the idea he might do wrong”. I think this is true, and I think it’s crucial for the EA community to reflect on these things going forward. It’s the moral licensing or self-licensing effect, which is well described in moral psychology—individuals who are very confident they are doing good may be more likely to engage in bad acts.
I think, however, that the EA community at large in recent years have started to suffer from a kind of intellectual self-licensing as well. The idea that one is very smart and very committed to reason and ethics and good arguments, may make it more likely to overlook some really obvious things. TBH I’ve had this impression of the EA community for quite some time, and this made me turn away from the movement to the degree that I began warning others not to join. In many ways I think I’m fairly ideal “EA material”. I have a master’s degree in philosophy, a PhD in social science, and a heavily idealistic outlook towards life which has led me to devote most of my free time (and much of my resources) to bettering the world—including sending costly signals about commitment by avoiding meat and air travel. I’m also extremely oriented towards rationality as an ideal and I appreciate the power of the better argument.
Still, it has seemed really obvious that these things are both bad and stupid:
cozying up to a billionaire who set up shop in a tax haven and became rich on an unsustainable industry which doesn’t provide real value to anybody
downplaying the very real existential risk of climate change which we can by now be very certain about
downplaying giving directly to the world’s many poor and refocusing on giving money towards fighting imagined future AI overlords, which we cannot be certain about at all
downplaying engaging in politics in order to make societal institutions better and more just
Many here will not agree that any or all of these things are either bad or stupid. I think they are, but I realize that merely stating that I think so will not convince any of you EAs. I realize that I may be wrong as well, at least in my belief that AI overlords will not materialize. The fourth point is also complex of course.
But I am not wrong on the first two points. This has, frankly, been blatantly obvious to most of the “rational & progressive” people outside EA. But here in EA you went along with FTX and crypto for a very long time, and it still seems like many here lack a real appreciation of how bad and threatening climate change actually is. There are exceptions of course, but if you are honest with yourselves you probably know that there is some truth to this. Why?
So my advice going forward is to make this a moment of reflection. Was this really just one guy who did something stupid and dragged others with him? Or does it indicate something about the EA community at large, which it would be wise to reflect upon, if one wants the EA community to remain a force for good?
Please bear with me if this post is not perfectly in line with the norms for discussion here. Even though it may be provocative, it is written with a hope that the EA movement will survive this crisis and come out of it as a real force for good. These are some thoughts written hastily late at night here in my country—Cremer and Kemp make similar points with much better arguments in “Democratizing risk”.
In any case, take care all you who have been affected by this.