Comments
This is excellent thank you.
"Due to this, I should act on the assumption EAs aren’t more trustworthy than average. Previously I acted as if they were. I now think the typical EA probably is more trustworthy than average – EA attracts some very kind and high integrity people – but it also attracts plenty of people with normal amounts of pride, self-delusion and self-interest, and there’s a significant minority who seem more likely to defect or be deceptive than average. The existence of this minority, and because it’s hard to tell who is who, means you need to assume that someone might be untrustworthy by default (even if “they’re an EA”). This doesn’t mean distrusting everyone by default – I still think it’s best to default to being cooperative – but it’s vital to have checks for and ways to exclude dangerous actors, especially in influential positions (i.e. trust, but verify)."
To build on and perhaps strengthen what you are saying. I think a central problem of utilitarian communities is: they will be disproportionately people on the spectrum, psychopaths and naive utilitarians.
I think there are reasons to think that in communities with lots of utilitarians/consequentialists, bad actors will not just be at the average societal level, but that they will be overrepresented. A lot of psychology research suggests that psychopaths disproportionately have utilitarian intuitions. By my count, at least two of the first ~100 EAs were psychopaths (SBF and one other that I know of, without looking very hard). (Of course not all utilitarians are psychopaths).
In addition to this, utilitarian communities will often obviously attract a disproportionate number of naive utilitarians who will be tempted to do bad actions.
This is all compounded by the fact that utilitarian communities will also be disproportionately comprised of people on the autism spectrum. This is obvious to anyone acquainted with EA and my offhand explanation would be something about the attraction to data and quantification. The people on the spectrum get exploited by/do not stand up to the psychopaths and naive utilitarians because they are not very good at interpersonal judgements and soft skills, and lack a good theory of mind.
With respect to judgment of character, I think we should maybe expect EAs to be below average because of the prevalence of autism.
All of this suggests that, as you recommend, in communities with lots of consequentialists, there needs to be very large emphasis on virtues and common sense norms. If people show signs of not being high integrity, they should be strongly disfavoured by default. I don't think this happens at the moment, and SBF is not the only example.
It could be true that bad actors are overrepresented in EA, and so it makes sense to have checks and balances for people in power. Perhaps honesty is not capturing all people are meaning with trustworthy, but I think the norms of honesty in EA are much stronger than in mainstream society. Behaviors such as admitting mistakes, being willing to update, admitting that someone else might be better for the job, recognizing uncertainty, admitting weaknesses in arguments, etc are much less common in mainstream society. I think EA selects for more honest people and also pushes people in the movement to be more honest.
I downvoted and want to explain my reasoning briefly: the conclusions presented are too strong, and the justifications don't necessarily support them.
We simply don't have enough experience or data points to say what the "central problem" in a utilitarian community will be. The one study cited seems suggestive at best. People on the spectrum are, well, on a spectrum, and so is their behavior; how they react will not be as monolithic as suggested.
All that being said, I softly agree with the conclusion (because I think this would be true for any community).
All of this suggests that, as you recommend, in communities with lots of consequentialists, there needs to be very large emphasis on virtues and common sense norms.
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, because people with dark triad personalities may be better than average at virtue signalling and demonstrating adherence to norms.
I think there should probably be a focus on principles, standards and rules that can be easily recalled by a person in a chaotic situation (e.g. put on your mask before helping others). And that these should be designed with limiting downside risk and risk of ruin in mind.
My intuition is that the rule "disfavour people who show signs of being low integrity" is a bad one, as:
- it relies on ability to compare person to idealised person rather than behaviour to rule, and the former is much more difficult to reason about
- it's moving the problem elsewhere not solving it
- it's likely to reduce diversity and upside potential of the community
- it doesn't mitigate the risk when a bad actor passes the filter
I'd favour starting from the premise that everyone has the potential to act without integrity and trying to design systems than mitigate this risk.
What systems could be designed to mitigate risks of people taking advantage of others? What about spreading the knowledge of how we are influenced? With this knowledge, we can recognize these behaviors and turn off our auto pilots so we can defend ourselves from bad actors. Or will that knowledge being widespread lead to some people using this knowledge to do more damage?
...for example, I think we should be less welcoming to proudly self-identified utilitarians, since they’re more likely to have these traits.
Ouch. Could you elaborate more on this and back this up more? The statement makes it sound like an obvious fact, and I don't see why this would be true.
+1
It seems pretty wrong to me that the thing causing SBF's bad behaviour was thinking what matters in the world is the longrun wellbeing of sentient beings. My guess is that we should be focusing more on his traits like ambition and callousness towards those around him.
But it seems plausible I'm just being defensive, as a proudly self-identified utilitarian who would like to be welcome in the community.
I basically agree and try to emphasize personality much more than ideology in the post.
That said, it doesn't seem like a big leap to think that confidence in an ideology that says you need to maximise a single value to the exclusion of all else could lead to dangerously optimizing behaviour...
Having more concern for the wellbeing of others is not the problematic part. But utilitarianism is more than that.
Moreover it could still be true that confidence in utilitarianism is in practice correlated with these dangerous traits.
I expect it's the negative component in the two factor model that's the problem, rather than the positive component you highlight. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900580/
it doesn't seem like a big leap to think that confidence in an ideology that says you need to maximise a single value to the exclusion of all else could lead to dangerously optimizing behaviour.
I don't find this a persuasive reason to think that utilitarianism is more likely to lead to this sort of behavior than pretty much any other ideology. I think a huge number of (maybe all?) ideologies imply that maximizing the good as defined by that ideology is the best thing to do, and that considerations outside of that ideology have very little weight. You see this behavior with many theists, Marxists, social justice advocates, etc. etc.
My general view is that there are a lot of people like SBF who have a lot of power-seeking and related traits—including callous disregard for law, social norms, and moral uncertainty—and that some of them use moral language to justify their actions. But I don't think utilitarianism is especially vulnerable to this, nor do I think it would be a good counterargument if it was. If utilitarianism is true, or directionally true, it seems good to have people identify as such, but we should definitely judge harshly those that take an extremely cavalier attitude towards morality on the basis of their conviction in one moral philosophy. Moral uncertainty and all that.
I'd agree a high degree of confidence + strong willingness to act combined with many other ideologies leads to bad stuff.
Though I still think some ideologies encourage maximisation more than others.
Utilitarianism is much more explicit in its maximisation than most ideologies, plus it (at least superficially) actively undermines the normal safeguards against dangerous maximisation (virtues, the law, and moral rules) by pointing out these can be overridden for the greater good.
Like yes there are extreme environmentalists and that's bad, but normally when someone takes on an ideology like environmentalism, they don't also explicitly & automatically say that the environmental is all that matters and that it's in principle permissible to cheat & lie in order to benefit the environment.
nor do I think it would be a good counterargument if it was.
Definitely not saying it has any bearing on the truth of utilitarianism (in general I don't think recent events have much bearing on the truth of anything). My original point was about who EA should try to attract, as a practical matter.
Utilitarianism is much more explicit in its maximisation than most ideologies, plus it (at least superficially) actively undermines the normal safeguards against dangerous maximisation (virtues, the law, and moral rules) by pointing out these can be overridden for the greater good.
Like yes there are extreme environmentalists and that's bad, but normally when someone takes on an ideology like environmentalism, they don't also explicitly & automatically say that the environmental is all that matters and that it's in principle permissible to cheat & lie in order to benefit the environment.
I think it's true that utilitarianism is more maximizing than the median ideology. But I think a lot of other ideologies are minimizing in a way that creates equal pathologies in practice. E.g., deontological philosophies are often about minimizing rights violations, which can be used to justify pretty extreme (and bad) measures.
Like yes there are extreme environmentalists and that's bad, but normally when someone takes on an ideology like environmentalism, they don't also explicitly & automatically say that the environmental is all that matters and that it's in principle permissible to cheat & lie in order to benefit the environment.
I moderately confidently expect there to be a higher proportion of extreme environmentalists than extreme utilitarians. I think utilitarians will be generally more intelligent / more interested in discussion / more desiring to be "correct" and "rational", and that the correct and predominant reply to things like the "Utilitarianism implies killing healthy patients!" critique is "Yeah, that's naive Utilitarianism, I'm a Sophisticated Utilitarian who realizes the value of norms, laws, virtues and intuitions for cooperation".
I disagree with this. I think utilitarian communities are especially vulnerable to bad actors. As I discuss in my other comment, psychopaths disproportionately have utilitarian intuitions, so we should expect communities with a lot of utilitarians to have a disproportionate number of psychopaths relative to the rest of the population.
psychopaths disproportionately have utilitarian intuitions, so we should expect communities with a lot of utilitarians to have a disproportionate number of psychopaths relative to the rest of the population.
From psychopaths disproportionately having utilitarian intuitions, it doesn't follow that utilitarians disproportionately have psychopathic tendencies. We might slightly increase our credence that they do, but probably not enough to meaningfully outweigh the experience of hanging out with utilitarians and learning first hand of their typical personality traits.
I think it does follow, other things being equal. If the prevalence of psychopaths in the wider population is 2%, but psychopaths are twice as likely to be utilitarians, then other things equal, we should expect 4% of utilitarian communities to be psychopaths. Unless you think psychopathy is correlated with other things that make one less likely to actually get involved in active utilitarian communities, that must be true.
There's any number of possible reasons why psychopaths might not want to get involved with utilitarian communities. For example, their IQ tends to be slightly lower than average, whereas utilitarians tend to have higher than average IQs, so they might not fit in intellectually whether their intentions were benign or malign. Relatedly, you would expect communities with higher IQs better at policing themselves against malign actors.
I think there would be countless confounding factors like this that would dominate a single survey based on a couple of hundred (presumably WEIRD) students.
In my other comment, I didn't just link to a single study, I linked to a google scholar search with lots of articles about the connection between psychopathy and utilitarianism. The effect size found in the single study I did link to is also pretty large:
The average difference in IQ found in the study you link to finds a very small effect size - a cohen's d of -0.12. And violent psychopaths have slightly higher IQ than average.
For the reasons I gave elsewhere in my comments, I would expect EAs to be worse at policing bad actors than average because EAs are so disproportionately on the autism spectrum.
Yes, these would be WEIRD people, but this is moot since EA is made up of WEIRD people as well.
Fair enough. I am still sceptical that this would translate into a commensurate increase in psychopaths in utilitarian communities*, but this seems enough to give us reason for concern.
*Also violent psychopaths don't seem to be our problem, so their greater intelligence would mean the average IQ of the kind of emotional manipulator we're concerned about would be slightly lower.
It's a big topic, but the justification is supposed to be the part just before. I think we should be more worried about attracting naive optimizers, and I think people who are gung-ho utilitarians are one example of a group who are more likely to have this trait.
I think it's notable that SBF was a gung-ho utilitarian before he got into EA.
It's maybe worth clarifying that I'm most concerned about people who a combination of high-confidence in utilitarianism and a lack of qualms about putting it into practice.
There are lots of people who see utilitarianism as their best guess moral theory but aren't naive optimizers in the sense I'm trying to point to here.
See more in Toby's talk.
It's maybe worth clarifying that I'm most concerned about people who a combination of high-confidence in utilitarianism and a lack of qualms about putting it into practice.
Thank you, that makes more sense + I largely agree.
However, I also wonder if all this could be better gauged by watching out for key psychological traits/features instead of probing someone's ethical view. For instance, a person low in openness showing high-risk behavior who happens to be a deontologist could cause as much trouble as a naive utilitarian optimizer. In either case, it would be the high-risk behavior that would potentially cause problems rather than how they ethically make decisions.
I was trying to do that :) That's why I opened with naive optimizing as the problem. The point about gung-ho utilitarians was supposed to be an example of a potential implication.
Yeah, I think "proudly self-identified utilitarians" is not the same as "naively optimizing utilitarians", so would encourage you to still be welcoming to those in the former group who are not in the latter :-)
ETA: I did appreciate your emphasizing that "it’s quite possible to have radical inside views while being cautious in your actions."
I had you in mind as a good utilitarian when writing :)
Good point that just saying 'naively optimizing' utilitarians is probably clearest most of the time. I was looking for other words that would denote high-confidence and willingness to act without qualms.
minor nitpick - this doesn't seem to capture naive utilitarianism as I understand it. I always thought naive utilitarianism was about going against common sense norms on the basis of your own personal fragile calculations. eg lying is prone to being rumbled and one's reputation is very fragile, so it makes sense to follow the norm of not lying even if your own calculations seem to suggest that it is good because the calculations will tend to miss longer term indirect and subtle effects. But this is neither about (1) high confidence nor (2) acting without qualms. Indeed one might decide not to lie with high confidence and without qualms. Equally, one might choose to 'lie for the greater good' with low confidence and with lots of qualms. This would still be naive utilitarian behaviour
That's useful - my 'naive optimizing' thing isn't supposed to be the same thing as naive utilitarianism, but I do find it hard to pin down the exact trait that's the issue here, and those are interesting points about confidence maybe not being the key thing.
Appendix: some other comments that didn't make it into the main post
I made some mistakes in tracking EA money
These aren’t updates but rather things I should have been able to figure out ex ante:
- Mark down private valuations of startups by a factor of ~2 (especially if the founders hold most of the equity)
- Measure growth from peak-to-peak or trough-to-trough rather than trough-to-peak – I knew crypto was in a huge bull market
- I maybe should have expected more correlation between Alameda and FTX, and a higher chance of going to zero, based on the outside view
- If your assets are highly volatile and the community is risk-averse, that’s a good reason to discount the value of those assets and/or delay spending until you have more confidence in how much money you have.
Taken together, I think we should have planned on the basis of the portfolio being 2-3x smaller than my estimates, and expected less future growth. I think some of these effects were taken into account in planning (it was obvious that crypto could fall a lot), perhaps correctly in some cases, but not enough in others.
Moreover, even with these adjustments, I think spending would have still been significantly below target, so there would have still been efforts to grow spending significantly, but maybe slower in some areas, especially the FF.
Another mistake
I think I made a mistake to publicly affiliate 80,000 Hours with SBF as much as we did – just based on good PR sense and messaging strategy – and not to investigate it more. (80,000 Hours has written about a similar issue on their mistakes page.)
Epistemic virtues
I was unsure whether to say anything extra about epistemic virtues, like honesty, integrity and truthseeking. I agree that having more of these virtues would have given us led us to put a higher probability on what was happening (e.g. via more people sharing concerns even if might make the community look bad), though it doesn’t feel like a big update about the value of these traits, since we already knew they’re valuable. Someone would have also needed to end up with a pretty high probability to do much about it. I agree (as covered above) that these events are an update against the idea EA has unusually good epistemics, and that stronger epistemics virtues seem more important in order to constrain dangerous actors. Finally, I think epistemic virtues have already had a lot of emphasis relatively speaking, so it seems hard to get large gains here.
Degree of criticism in the culture
I feel worried that the updates listed are going to lead towards a more critical, non-trusting culture in which people’s character and minor actions are publicly scrutinised, and there’s more gossip and less friendship. Personally I already find EA culture often pretty negative and draining, so feel worried about moving more in that direction. One option is to accept it’s what’s needed to prevent dangerous actors, and that EA is going to be a less fun place to be, and therefore have less potential. However, I suspect and hope it’s also possible to find ways to make improvements in the directions I gesture at that don’t make the culture more negative.
Membership growth
I expect EA membership growth to take a hit. 2022 showed strong growth (20-60%), and I already expected 2023 to be lower (unless we maintain accelerating effort into growth). But FTX will reduce that because (i) a lot of the 2022 growth seems to be driven by personal connections, and that could be pretty sensitive to positive buzz (ii) lower funding & investment (iii) decent chance that a wave of people leaves (and this could start a negative feedback loop). I don’t think increased (negative) media coverage will lead to much growth, since even positive coverage hasn’t caused much growth in the past. I wouldn’t be shocked if the community were overall smaller in a couple of years. On the positive side, many measures of community growth seem unaffected so far, so it seems likely the longer term trend of 10-30% growth continues after the next 1-2 years.
I think I made a mistake to publicly affiliate 80,000 Hours with SBF as much as we did
But 80k didn't just "affiliate" with SBF - they promoted him with untrue information. And I don't see this addressed in the above or anywhere else. Particularly, his podcast interview made a thing of him driving a Corolla and sleeping on a beanbag as part of promoting the frugal Messiah image, when it seems likely that at least some people high up in EA knew that this characterisation was false. Plus no mentioning of the stories of how he treated his Alameda co-founders. And perhaps 80k and yourself were completely ignorant of this when the podcast was made, but did nobody tell you that this needed to be corrected? Either way, it doesn't seem good for EA functioning.
My sense is that this idea that some people high up in EA lied or failed to correct the record has cast a shadow over everyone in such positions, since nobody has given a credible account of who knew and lied/withheld that information that I know of. It contributes to a reduction in trust. It's not like it's unforgiveable - I think it is understandable that good people might have felt like going along with some seemingly small lies for what they saw as a greater good, and I think everyone in such positions generally has very impressive and admirable achievements. But it's hard to keep credibility with general suspicion in the air. If you really had no knowledge then I feel sorry that this seems likely to also affect you.
Hi Pagw — in case you haven't seen it here's my November 2022 reply to Oli H re Sam Bankman-Fried's lifestyle:
"I was very saddened to hear that you thought the most likely explanation for the discussion of frugality in my interview with Sam was that I was deliberately seeking to mislead the audience.
I had no intention to mislead people into thinking Sam was more frugal than he was. I simply believed the reporting I had read about him and he didn’t contradict me.
It’s only in recent weeks that I learned that some folks such as you thought the impression about his lifestyle was misleading, notwithstanding Sam's reference to 'nice apartments' in the interview:
"I don’t know, I kind of like nice apartments. ... I’m not really that much of a consumer exactly. It’s never been what’s important to me. And so I think overall a nice place is just about as far as it gets."
Unfortunately as far as I can remember nobody else reached out to me after the podcast to correct the record either.
In recent years, in pursuit of better work-life balance, I’ve been spending less time socialising with people involved in the EA community, and when I do, I discuss work with them much less than in the past. I also last visited the SF Bay Area way back in 2019 and am certainly not part of the 'crypto' social scene. That may help to explain why this issue never came up in casual conversation.
Inasmuch as the interview gave listeners a false impression about Sam I am sorry about that, because we of course aim for the podcast to be as informative and accurate as possible."
Thanks Robert. No I hadn't seen that, thanks for sharing it (the total amount of stuff on FTX exceeded my bandwidth and there is much I missed!).
Given that, the thought behind my earlier comment that remains is that it would seem more appropriately complete to acknowledge in Ben's reflections that 80k made a mistake in information it put out, not just in "affiliating" with SBF. And also that if a body as prominent as 80k had not heard concerns about SBF that were circulating, it seems to suggest there are important things to improve about communication of information within EA and I'd have thought they'd warrant a mention in there. Though I appreciate that individuals may not want to be super tuned in to everything.
I agree with Peter's comments here. Some of 80k's own staff were part of the early Alameda cohort who left and thought SBF was a bad actor. In an honest accounting of mistakes made, it seems strange not to acknowledge that 80k (and others) missed an important red flag in 2018, and didn't put any emphasis on it when talking to/promoting SBF
I’ve also assumed that 80k leadership was aware of red flags around SBF since 2018, due to A) 80k staff being part of the early Alameda staff that left, B) assuming 80k leadership was part of the EA Leader Slack channel where concerns were raised, C) Will (co-founder and board member) and Nick (board member) being aware of concerns (per Time’s reporting). It would be great if someone from 80k could confirm which of these channels (if any) 80k leadership heard concerns through. Assuming they were indeed aware of concerns, I agree with John and Pagw that it seems odd not to mention hearing those red flags in the OP.
To be explicit, even if 80k leadership was aware of red flags around SBF since 2018, I don’t think they should have anticipated the scale of his fraud. And they might have made correct decisions along the way given what they knew at the time. But those red flags (if 80k was indeed aware of them) seem like they should play a part in any retrospective accounting of lessons learned from the whole affair.
The 80k team are still discussing it internally and hope to say more at a later date.
Speaking personally, Holden's comments (e.g. in Vox) resonated with me. I wish I'd done more to investigate what happened at Alameda.
People downvoting - it would be useful to know why.
many measures of community growth seem unaffected so far
Interesting! Can you share details? (Or point to where others have?)
Some of the ones I've seen:
80k's metrics seems unaffected so far, and it's one of the biggest drivers of community growth.
I've also heard that EAG(x) applications didn't seem affected.
GWWC pledgers were down, though a lot of that is due to them not doing a pledge drive in Dec. My guess is that if they do a pledge drive next Dec similar to previous ones, the results will be similar. The baseline of monthly pledges seems ~similar.
I would be surprised if the effect from the lack of a pledge drive would run on into February and March 2023 though. Comparison YoY here is 12 months before, Jan 2023 to 2022 etc.
Hmm that does seem worse than I expected.
I wonder if it's because gwwc has cut back outreach or is getting less promotion by other groups (whereas 80k continued it's marketing as before, plus a lot of 80k's reach is passive), or whether it points to outreach actually being harder now.
FYI I’ve just released a post which offers significantly more empirical data on how FTX has impacted EA. FTX’s collapse seems to mark a clear and sizable deterioration across a variety of different EA metrics.
I included your comment about 80k's metrics being largely unaffected, but if there's some updated data on if/how 80k's metrics have changed post-FTX that would be very interesting to see.
Other data points on community growth per CEA’s dashboard:
- Traffic for the intro page on effectivealtruism.org is at the lowest level since the data starts in April 2017, and has been falling steadily since FTX.
- The EA newsletter has been losing subscribers steadily since FTX (i.e. people are unsubscribing faster than new people have started subscribing)
Measure growth from peak-to-peak or trough-to-trough rather than trough-to-peak – I knew crypto was in a huge bull market
What does this mean?
If you're tracking the annual change in wealth between two periods, you should try to make sure the start at the end point are either both market peaks or both market lows.
e.g. from 2017 to 2021, or 2019 to Nov 2022 would be valid periods for tracking crypto.
If you instead track from e.g. 2019 to 2021, then you're probably going to overestimate.
Another option would be to average over periods significantly longer than a typical market cycle (e.g. 10yr).
Ah, I see. Thanks. It makes total sense.
I think I made a mistake to publicly affiliate 80,000 Hours with SBF as much as we did – just based on good PR sense and messaging strategy – and not to i.
Is this an incomplete sentence?
Thanks fixed!
Thanks for writing this!
I’ve also updated back in favour of EA not being a great public facing brand, since it seems to have held up poorly in the face of its first major scandal.
Are there examples of brands which you think have held up better to their own scandals? You say "it’s unclear EA’s perception among the general public has changed (most of them have still never heard of EA)" which seems to imply that EA held up quite well, under the definition I would most intuitively use (perception among the general public).
First to clarify, yes most of the general public haven't heard of EA, and many haven't made the connection with FTX.
I think EA's brand has mainly been damaged among what you could call the chattering classes. But I think that is a significant cost.
It's also damaged in the sense that if you search for it online you find a lot more negative stuff now.
On the question about comparisons, unfortunately I don't have a comprehensive answer.
Part of my thinking is that early on I thought EA wasn't a good public facing brand. Then things went better than I expected for a while. But then after EA actually got serious negative attention, it seemed like the old worries were correct after all.
My impression is that many (almost all?) face large scandals eventually, but it doesn't always stick in the way it was sticking with EA.
I'm also sympathetic to Holden's comments.
It's fairly different, but I've been moderately impressed with political PR groups. It seems like there are some firm playbooks of how to respond to crises, and some political agencies are well practiced here.
I think, in comparison, there was very little activity by EA groups during the FTX issue. (I assume one challenge was just the legal hurdles of having the main potential groups be part of EV).
I get the impression that companies don't seem to try to respond to crises that much (at least, quickly), but they definitely spend a lot of effort marketing themselves and building key relationships otherwise.
I’d updated a bit towards the move fast and break things / super high ambition / chaotic philosophy of org management due to FTX (vs. prioritise carefully / be careful about overly rapid growth / follow best practice etc.), but I undo that update. (Making this update on one data point was probably also a mistake in the first place.)
...But undoing the update based on one data point is not a mistake?
I'm not being pedantic. I don't think anyone's had the bravery yet to publicly point out that the SBF story - both pre-scandal and post-scandal - is just one data point.
A massive ******* data point, to be sure, so let's think very seriously about the lessons to be learnt - I don't mean to trivialise the gravity of the harm that's occurred.
I'm saying that I think the updates we're all making right now should be much more similar in magnitude to finding out that SBF had almost succeeded but for some highly contingent obstacle in committing an $8bn fraud, than to finding out that 8 self-proclaimed EAs had each committed a $1bn fraud.
I feel like the typical community member is over-updating on the FTX scandal. I don't really get that sense with you and I love that you've included an "Updates I’m basically not making" section.
(Noting that I think there's a good chance my reasoning here is confused given that I can't recall this point having been made anywhere yet. Putting it out there just in case.)
I don’t think the update is just one data point. Some of the issues with FTX - over reliance on alignment over domain expertise, group think, poor governance, overemphasising speed over robust execution at times straying into recklessness also exist within part of EA. FTX brings that into very sharp focus but is not the only example.
Thank you!
Yes I think if you make update A due to a single data point, then you realise you shouldn't have updated on a single data point, you should undo update A. Like your original reasoning was wrong.
That aside, in the general case I think it can sometimes be justified a lot to update on a single datapoint. E.g. if you think an event was very unlikely, and then that event happens, your new probability estimate for the event will normally go up a lot.
In other cases, if you already have lots of relevant points, then adding a single extra one won't have much impact.
One extra point is that I think people have focused too much on SBF. The other founders also said they supported EA. So if we're just counting up people, it's more than one.
Some possible worlds:
SBF was aligned with EA | SBF wasn't aligned with EA | |
|---|---|---|
| SBF knew this | EA community standards permit harmful behaviour. | SBF violated EA community standards. |
| SBF didn't know this | EA community standards are unclear. | EA community standards are unclear. |
Some possible stances in these worlds:
| Possible world | Possible stances | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EA community standards permit harmful behaviour | 1a. This is intolerable. Adopt a maxim like "first, do no harm" | 1b. This is tolerable. Adopt a maxim like "to make an omelette you'll have to break a few eggs" | 1c. This is desirable. Adopt a maxim like "blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne" |
| SBF violated EA community standards | 2a. This is intolerable. Standards adherence should be prioritised above income-generation. | 2b. This is tolerable. Standards violations should be permitted on a risk-adjusted basis. | 2c. This is desirable. Standards violations should be encouraged to foster anti-fragility. |
| EA community standards are unclear | 3a. This is intolerable. Clarity must be improved as a matter of urgency. | 3b. This is tolerable. Improved clarity would be nice but it's not a priority. | 3c. This is desirable. In the midst of chaos there is also opportunity. |
I'm a relative outsider and I don't know which world the community thinks it is in, or which stance it is adopting in that world.
Some hypotheses:
- When trying to guide altruists, it matters what problem-domain they are operating in.
- In the obvious domain, solutions are known. If you have the aptitude, be a doctor rather than a small-time pimp.
- In a complicated domain, solutions are found through analysis. Seems like the EA community is analytically minded, so may have a bias towards characterising complex and chaotic problems as complicated. This is dangerous because in the complicated domain, the value of iteration and incrementalism is low whereas in the complex domain it's very high.
- In a complex domain, solutions are found through experimentation. There should be a strong preference for ability to run more experiments.
- In a chaotic domain, solutions are found through acting before your environment destroys you. There should be a strong preference for establishing easy to follow heuristics that are unlikely to introduce catastrophic risk across a wide range of environments.
2. Consequentialist ethics are inherently future-oriented. The future contains unknown unknowns and unknowable unknowns, so any system of consequentialist ethics is always working in the complex and chaotic domains. Consequentialism proceeds by analytical reasoning, even if a subset of the reasoning is probabilistic, and this is not applicable to the complex and chaotic domains, so it's not a useful framework.
3. What's actually happening when thinking through things from a consequentialist perspective is that you are imagining possible futures and identifying ways to get there, which is an imaginative process not an analytical one.
4. Better frameworks would be present-oriented, focusing on needs and how to sustainably meet them. Virtue ethics and deontological ethics are present-oriented ethical frameworks that may have some value. Orientation towards establishing services and infrastructure at the right scale and resilience level, rather than outputs (e.g. lives-saved) would be more fruitful over the long-term.
Really great post, agree with almost everything, thanks for writing!
(More speculatively, it seems plausible to me that many EAs have worse judgement of character than average, because e.g. they project their good intentions onto others.)
Agreed. Another plausible reason is that system 1 / gut instincts play an important role in character judgment but many EAs dismiss their system 1 intuitions more or experience them less strongly than the average human. This is partly due to selection effects (EA appeals more to analytical people) but perhaps also because several EA principles emphasize putting more weight on reflective, analytical reasoning than on instincts and emotions (e.g., the heuristics and biases literature, several top cause areas (like AI) aren't intuitive at all, and so on). [1]
That's at least what I experienced first hand when interacting with a dangerous EA several years ago. I met a few people who had negative impressions of this person's character but couldn't really back them up with any concrete evidence or reasoning, and this EA continued to successfully deceive me for more than a year.[2] Personally, I didn't have a negative impression in the first place (partly because the concept of a non-trustworthy EA was completely out of my hypothesis space back then) so other people were clearly able to pick up on something that I couldn't.
- ^
To be clear, I'm not saying that reflective reasoning is bad (it's awesome) or that we now should all trust our gut instincts when it comes to character judgment. Gut instincts are clearly fallible. The average human certainly isn't amazing at character judgment.
- ^
FWIW, my experiences with this person were a major inspiration for this post.
I agree with the bulk of this post, but disagree (or have misunderstood) in two specific ways:
First, I think it is essential that EA is a “practical project”, not merely (or primarily) an intellectual project. Peter Singer shared an intellectual insight linked to practical action, and the EA community used that insight to shape our thinking on impactful interventions and to make a practical difference in the world. It’s the link to practical action that, for me, is the most important part of what we do. I think EA is, and should be, fundamentally a practical project. Of course, we should do sufficient intellectual work to inform that practical project. But, if we lose sight of the practical project, I don’t think it’s “effective” or “altruism”.
Second, I think the trend of “disassociating” is typically unhelpful. You note elsewhere in your post that brand damage risks negative feedback loops (and hence a reduction in tractability) and that there is a chance that the community tears itself apart in the face of setbacks. I think disassociating fuels those fires. Personally, I plan to keep associating the EA brand (appropriately) with the good work that I do, because I want everyone in this community to benefit from the positive externality of my work (as humble as that might be). It would be nice if others did the same. That’s how we rebuild and come out of this stronger. If everyone doing good work disassociates, that’s the definition of the community tearing itself apart.
On the balance of things we agree on (and my own priors separate to recent events), I think EA becoming more centralised is right. I agree that we need to focus on good governance and integrity. Doing that effectively requires a sufficient centre-of-mass. The current situation with very many dozens (hundreds?) of small organisations and grant-funded individuals largely doing their own things is not well suited for good governance and high integrity. I think funders should strongly update to provide funding to established organisations (geographically based or subject matter based) to achieve particular outcomes, rather than providing grants to individuals. Empowering peak bodies on issues or in locations lets them have the weight and expertise necessary to drive integrity and enforce norms. But that’s verging on a different conversation.
Just a small clarification, I'm not saying we should abandon the practical project, but it could make sense to (relatively speaking) focus on more tractable areas / dial down ambitions / tilt more towards the intellectual project until we've established more operational competence.
I also agree dissociating has significant costs that need to be weighed against the other reasons.
Thanks for writing this up Ben. I largely agree with your comments.
I think that I most agree with your suggestion for what to do for community building in the future.
I think that we should try to focus on spreading our most useful ideas and insights as individuals and organisations with similar values rather than trying to get more people to adopt an EA identity and join the EA community.
I think that because having an EA community focus seems to create more challenges and promise fewer rewards than a focus on spreading ideas as individuals and organisations with similar values.
As an example of challenges, if someone has career questions and I refer them to 80,000 Hours and some other resources that could be helpful, then that probably raises no alarms. However, if I start talking about this EA community I am interested in that they should join it pattern matches to something more worrying (e.g., a cult) and puts some people off.
The grouping of people and organisations by their identification with EA also leads to all sorts of challenges with press (who suddenly have a target and suspicion about us) and guilt by brand association (like what happens every time a bad actor does something).
As an example of rewards - I think that our ideas might spread much more widely if not associated with any moral framework or set of values. Right now, I can imagine someone proposing some sort of cost-effectiveness assessment for a government project and people having a more negative response because they think that those are EA ideas (and thus associated with SBF/longtermism or whatever they find distasteful etc).
What I think this approach looks like for me is thinking and saying that I have been influenced by EA ideas and the community, but that it's just one of several ideas and communities that I am interested/engaged with. Which is true.
From an outreach perspective, it means that I will rarely if ever suggest that people join the EA community in future. However, when relevant, I will connect people with resources, organisations, and meetups/events if I think it will be helpful/positive impact.
(I submitted the comment early by accident and someone disagree voted it. Just flagging so that they/others know. Feel free to disagree with the finished comment too, of course!)
Thanks, Ben. This is a really thoughtful post.
I wondered if you had any update on the blurring between EA and longtermism. I‘ve seen a lot of criticism of EA that is really just low quality criticism of longtermism because the conclusions can be weird.
Optimistic note with low confidence:
In my impression, SBF thought he was doing an 'unpalatable' but right thing given the calculations (and his epistemic immodesty). Promoting a central meme in EA like "naïve calculations like this are too dangerous and too fallible" might solve a lot of the issue. I think dangerously-optimize-y people in EA are already updating in this direction as a result of FTX. Before FTX, being "hardcore" and doing naïve calculations was seen as cool sometimes. If we correct hard for this right now, it may be less of an issue in the future.
2 main caveats:
- The whole "don't do naïve calculations" idea is quite complex and not easy to communicate. This may make it hard to correct for it.
- The movements of the memes of a space as large and complex as EA are probably hard to predict. All sorts of crazy things might happen and I have no clue. Like for example there could be a new counterculture part of EA that becomes super dangerously-optimize-y. (But at least they would face more of an uphill battle in this world.)
Yes I agree that could be a good scenario to emerge from this – a very salient example of this kind of thinking going wrong is one of the most helpful things to convince people to stop doing it.
it seems plausible 70%+ of efforts that were funded in 2022 should be phased out.be unwound
Minor: I think there's a typo here
From copying suggest changes :(
I'm unclear on this paragraph, whose last sentence arguably gives away most of the main point:
It doesn’t seem like an update on the idea that billionaires have too much influence on cause prioritisation in effective altruism. I don’t think SBF had much influence on cause prioritisation, and the Future Fund mainly supported causes that were already seen as important. I agree SBF was having some influence on the culture of the community (e.g. towards more risk taking), which I attribute to the halo effect around his apparent material success. Billionaires can also of course have disproportionate influence on what it’s possible to get paid to work on, which sucks, but I don’t see a particular promising route to avoiding that.
I take it that "billionaires can exert heavy control what EA does because they ultimately control the funding" is not an update because that was already obvious. Is the idea that SBF didn't have much influence on people's thinking about cause prioritization, that he didn't have much actual influence because his ideas were largely already popular, or that his funding dried up soon enough that it didn't have much effect on cause prioritization as funded?
Yes, something like that: he of course had an influence on what you could get paid for (which seems hard to avoid given some ppl have more money than others) but I don't think he had a big influence on people's thinking about cause pri.
I don’t think SBF impacted cause prioritization by promoting pet causes that weren’t already favored by parts of the EA community. But I do think SBF, through the FTX Future Fund, likely shifted how people prioritized across different EA causes.
My sense is that the easy availability of longetermist funding made people more likely to work in that space, as people were well aware of a dynamic where (in Peter Wildeford’s words): “it's clear that global poverty does get the most overall EA funding right now, but it's also clear that it's more easy for me to personally get my 20th best longtermism idea funded than to get my 3rd best animal idea or 3rd best global poverty idea funded and this asymmetry seems important.”
Yes, I'd basically agree – he didn't influence the thinking that much but he did impact what you could get paid to do (and that could also have long term impacts on the structure of the community).
Though, given income inequality, the latter problem seems very hard to solve.
Thank you for this post. I think I broadly agree. I feel:
a) some resistance around your framing and valuation of investment in community building in some of its forms, though I appreciate your arguments and don't really dispute them - it's more a case of how I would weigh them up against other factors.
Namely, one lesson I take from the FTX affair and other issues that have come up in our movement in recent months/years is that having a more open, inclusive, dynamic community that 'recruits' among more diverse socio-economic/cultural backgrounds (even if new entrants largely stay on the periphery of e.g. key decision-making as they build a clear model of how EA looks at the world, get a better sense of what intervening in their fields of interest might look like if they join as students/early career professionals rather than high-ranking experts) could give our movement more resilience by increasing the aggregate balance in what we expect to be normal (in terms of ways of securing capital, degrees of power concentration and risk taking we deem acceptable, etc. - note that I'm not advocating against centralised functioning for certain aspects of the cooperative work we set out to do).
If anything, perhaps the fact that 'core EA' seems to not really have seen the FTX debacle coming nor be too troubled by a select few deciding how money gets allocated despite the stakes and the degree of uncertainty and volatility of everything we're tinkering with suggests to me that we should invest in what I'll call higher perspectival pluralism, for want of a better descriptor (I'm writing on a very noisy broken down train and my attention is pretty badly challenged by that, in case any of this doesn't feel too smooth to read). I realise this must seem abhorrent to read to some people - I'm not saying expertise should not play a major role in decision making in EA, which means a lot of decision making shouldn't be democratic in the sense where everyone's opinion, however well or poorly informed, counts equally. But I think it's worth considering that there's a lot of steering of the movement that exceeds the bounds of technical decisions best made by people who really know their field. Norms around behaviour and risk taking are examples of what I mean by 'steering of the movement'.
b) curiosity around how you construe the increased 'moderation' you find yourself drawn to. It'd be interesting to flesh out what this entails. My sense is that this 'moderation' is essentially a response to the 'naïve optimising' that has been discussed in some previous comments. It's a sound response, in my view, and it bears breaking down into something with higher descriptive signal.
The way I would propose to conceive of this 'moderation' goes something like this - excessively optimising for an outcome fails to support the resilience of the wider system (whichever system we may be looking at in a given instance) by removing the 'inefficiencies' (e.g. redundancies) that provide buffers against shocks and distortions, including unknown unknowns. Decreased resilience is bad. It's not compatible with sustained robustness - it displaces pressure, often in poorly monitored ways that end up blowing up in our faces unexpectedly. Or worse, the faces of other stakeholders who had been minding their own business all along.
To be clear, my understanding is you are mostly considering embracing more moderate views with regards to EA's potential to achieve a flawless record, to be a desirable social bubble, etc. - I think my take on this applies to this too (and again, I agree with your general sentiment and am simply trying to clarify what moderation might mean in this context).
In other words, welcoming some degree of inefficiency could actually be a good way to translate the epistemic humility most of us strive for (and the moderation you speak of) into the design and implementation of our initiatives. I'd like to see any approaches to what this could look like from a design/operational research perspective, if anyone has come up with even tentative models for this.
So my sense is that we should:
- be wary of endeavours like FTX that are willing to compromise important aspects of how we're trying to impact the world for the sake of maximal effectiveness, and
- encourage people to build sustainably robust impact across the board rather than achieving Everything Right Away With Maximal ROI but with serious tunnel vision. In other words, valuing effectiveness means, under conditions of uncertainty, sacrificing some efficiency (as a side note, I suppose this is one of the underlying assumptions for point #a above). Obviously this wouldn't be the case if we were omniscient, but I don't think any of us is arguing that, especially post-FTX. So until then, I think we should value slack more highly across the board.
As one practical upshot of this, I helped 80k make a round of updates to their online articles in light of FTX. See more.
More on what moderation might mean in practice here:
https://80000hours.org/2023/05/moderation-in-doing-good/
Thanks Ben, there's a lot of food for thought here, most of which I basically agree with. I think I make all the same non-updates as you. As a staunch utilitarian in principle but longtime advocate of much more 'normie' behaviours for the EA movement, I have a few extra takes:
I should act on the assumption EAs aren’t more trustworthy than average
This seems like a mistake as written (though the clarifying text makes me think you didn't mean it literally). In many contexts trustworthiness can be basically binary (for eg are you willing to open source your bank details among your local EA community?), but when interacting 1-1 or when designing incentive structures among groups of people, you can view it as a sliding scale - eg, 'how much background checking would I want to do per resource I'm considering giving this person?' In the latter case, it seems like a horrible overreaction to assume they're no more trustworthy than average.
I would also lean away from SBF exceptionalism and the distinction of 'a significant minority who seem more likely to defect or be deceptive than average'. While I also think the typical EA is more trustworthy than average, I neither think SBF was a monster, nor that those who interacted with him and ignored/failed to see warning signs were otherwise perfect, and I lean towards updating more that EAs in general rationalise and follow perverse incentives, albeit still less so than average.
EAs are also less competent than I thought, and have worse judgement of character and competence than I thought.
I agree with this, and think there are many pre-FTX examples suggesting it. But another plausible take would be that EAs are relatively homogenous, and so as a community have relatively large blind spots towards certain classes of exploitation, and low ability to assess competence beyond their key skills (as you allude to below). To the extent that that's true, it seems more valuable to build the community towards providing those blind spots and developing other skills than to downgrade your assessment of EAs. Ie, though perhaps it's similar in practice, view the non-EA world as more competent, rather than viewing EAs as less so.
I think this emphasis helps avoid the temptation to start the whole cycle again... 'old EA was flawed, but this time we're going to reinvent everything better than ever!'
All the above makes me feel tempted to negatively update on the community’s epistemics across the board
I would be more inclined to do so. The whole AI risk movement is predicated on the idea that intelligence generalises, so it seems somewhat self-effacing for the same group of people to say 'we did this thing which was dumb, but we shouldn't downgrade our estimate of our overall competence'.
I also have the sense - although I'm not sure how justifiably - that speculative EA ideas consist in long chains of causal reasoning which many people skip across from a sense of trust. But those ideas tend to be promoted by people with a financial- or status-based incentive to argue for interesting conclusions that require (funding for) more research. So if we are going to downgrade our trust in the average integrity of EAs, we should increase our credence that those ideas have been partially propagated due to such incentives.
Governance seems more important.
Strongly agree, but in particular I would like to see EA orgs look much more habitually outside of their social circle for hiring board members alike. 'Value-alignment' should be seen as a two-edged sword, not a prerequisite.
This suggests that media based outreach is going to be less effective going forward.
I argued elsewhere that the previous lack of media outreach was partly responsible for the high proportion of coverage being bad (since if you tell everyone who supports you not to talk to the media about you, all the people talking to the media about you are people who don't support you, and that seems as true as ever to me. Obviously we should exercise caution, and maybe reconsider who the best people to talk to the media are, but shutting down outreach completely in the wake of FTX looks like an admission of guilt, and seems like a surefire way to extend the duration of bad publicity.
IMO the problem many people have had with EA is less its ideas and more its lack of humility, so if we can successfully update the latter going forward, it could allow a healthier and more productive engagement with the outside world.
In general the above thoughts make me more pro-community-building than you, since most of the problems seem fixable:
- My estimate of the fraction of dangerous actors attracted has gone up, and my confidence in our ability to spot them has gone down, making the community less valuable.
This seems fixable by getting more people in who can see our blind spots. Ie by growing the community.
- Tractability seems lower due to the worse brand, worse appeal and lower morale, and potential for negative feedback loops.
I agree the 'brand' needs serious reconsideration. I suspect treating it as a brand has caused many problems of its own - but the philosophy seems unlikely to suffer much lasting damage, and organising a movement around a philosophy seems to have much better historical precedent than organising one around a brand.
I honestly think semi-formally relaunching it with a new name, one which better admits people applying it to themselves without either sounding so hubristic or sounding like it's integral to their identity. 'Vegetarians' seem like a good point of comparison here.
- More speculatively, as of January, I feel more pessimistic about the community’s ability to not tear itself apart in the face of scandal and setbacks.
As arguably one of the tearers, I think this brought to the surfaces concerns some of us had been developing for years. If the brand-managers do actually update towards greater epistemic and social humility, better governance practices and a better appreciation for the input of both aligned and non-aligned crowds, then I would feel substantially more optimistic about the community's response to future problems.
- I’m also more concerned that community is simply unpleasant for many people to be part of.
Most community building to date seems to have focused on professional networking. Personally by far the most rewarding and productive EA events I've been to have been those that were about building connections organically in more social settings. I think if there were more emphasis on events feeling good, it would feel more like a community, more pleasant to be a part of, and less inclined to attract radicals. Its feeling more good would also make people who tended to make it feel bad more visible by contrast.
I’m less into the vision of EA as an identity / subculture / community, especially one that occupies all parts of your life
My above comments notwithstanding, I feel like the 'not occupying all parts of your life' idea is robustly good advice. But something can be both a welcoming community and non-all-consuming. The Quakers seem like a healthy comparison, for example.
I feel unsure if EA should become either more or less centralised, and suspect some of both might make sense.
I continue to wish for someone to try creating a network of small nonprofits, with enough redundancy to allow friendly competition but enough trust and careful enough alignment of incentives to allow high intra-network levels of support. This could turn out to be a terrible or a least hopelessly impractical vision, but if we think 'a single body that speaks for & represents <the community>, but where there’s no community-wide membership or control' approach is bad - which I also do - then it seems like a good time to test structural alternatives.
I feel unsure how to update about promotion of earning to give.
To the extent that we think people at EA orgs shared some responsibility for FTX, it seems like we should downgrade the value of working at EA orgs, and thus to upgrade the value of earning to give. But, given your own comments below about the extremely disproportionate value of billionaires, it seems like we should also continue to be mostly in favour of billionaire-creation. So I'm also unsure how to think about this - though I guess E2G is more consistent with epistemic humility than committing yourself to a particular organisation.
I'm sad that such events are often needed to make some common sense ideas arise, but I am very happy that they nonetheless arose!
Some particular comments:
if someone who might feel ‘on your side’ appears to be doing unusually well, try to increase scrutiny rather than reduce it
Yes! This is general. Mostly everyone is interested that their side is "good". Taking shortcuts, low moral standards, etc. help doing particularly well, so one needs to be particularly careful with those people.
we should be skeptical about the idea that EAs have better judgement about anything that’s not a key area of EA or personal expertise, and should use conventional wisdom, expert views or baserates for those (e.g. how to run an org; likelihood of making money; likelihood of fraud. A rule of thumb to keep in mind: “don’t defer to someone solely because they’re an EA.” Look for specific expertise or evaluate the arguments directly.
I’m less into the vision of EA as an identity / subculture / community, especially one that occupies all parts of your life
Yes, in general actively fighting against EA communities to become silos and for EA enterprises to have workers outside EA communities would be of great value. I've seen quite a lot of outside criticism to EA in this line but did not notice any change. This is why I was so happy when I red this post and when I saw this passage in a comment from Rob about his interview with SBF:
In recent years, in pursuit of better work-life balance, I’ve been spending less time socialising with people involved in the EA community, and when I do, I discuss work with them much less than in the past.
Maybe this idea is more accepted than I thought? I would ask core EAs who agree with this to be more vocal about it. You may already act accordingly in your life, but it would be valuable that "the community" can see that, at least some relevant EA figures have a life outside EA. And I say this not only for individual's better work-life balance, this is also very important community-wide.
And I say this not only for individual's better work-life balance, this is also very important community-wide.
Perhaps undermined a little by the context that Rob was attributing his not noticing a possible red flag about SBF to his disengagement from the community.
Besides the general and deep reasons to avoid EA communities to become silos, thinking this would be a bit myopic, since plenty of people noticed red flags about SBF and nothing happened nonetheless.
Thanks!
My social life is pretty much only people who aren't in the EA community at this point.
Small comment on this:
actively fighting against EA communities to become silos and for EA enterprises to have workers outside EA communities would be of great value
It depends on the org, but for smaller orgs that are focused on EA community building, I still think it could make sense for them to pretty much only people who are very interested in EA. I wouldn't say the same about e.g. most biorisk orgs though.
My social life is pretty much only people who aren't in the EA community at this point.
Super! :-D
I think I would also agree regarding the community building organisations. I haven't really thought about that case, but it intuitively makes sense.
The FTX episode reminds me of Theranos, in that if I try to take a charitable view of what the founder was doing in each case, I could postulate they believed they needed to "fake it till you make it." In fact, this is advice I have even heard successful entrepreneurs give other aspiring entrepreneurs: "fake it till you make it."
Starting a new company is such a daunting and overwhelming task that those who attempt to do it are going to self select for certain traits. They will tend to be over confident in themselves, they will start endeavors without being sure of their ability to execute on them, they will be reluctant to give up in the face of evidence that they should, they will be charismatic salespeople who can convince others to join them in their efforts and customers to buy their products, and they will believe the ends justify the means in making the company succeed.
The biggest lesson of FTX (for me) is that given who entrepreneurship self selects for, and given the inherent challenges in entrepreneurship and the incentives that it creates, the ground is perhaps fertile for fraud and other immorality.
Obviously entrepreneurship is still important and I do not mean to discourage anyone with a good idea from pursuing it, but we should all be aware of the pressures it creates and the vulnerabilities to bad behavior.
Several people we thought deeply shared our values have been charged with conducting one of the biggest financial frauds in history (one of whom has pled guilty).
Update July 2023
As of now, two other former executives at FTX and/or Alameda Research have plead guilty. The 3 who have plead guilty are the 3 former execs who are known as the most complicit in SBF's alleged crimes. That the 3 of them have plead guilty, while SBF is still denying all charges, seems like it will be one of the most interesting parts of his upcoming trial.
Wow, this back-of-the-envelope has really brought home to me how "EA should diversify its funding sources!" is not as straightforward as it first appears:
Similarly for "EA should diversify its public faces!":
I'm surprised people don't talk about this more.
Hi there,
Yes, donations are also quite heavy-tailed within GWWC Pledges. From here: