I’m Rachel Ensign, a reporter with the Wall Street Journal. I’m looking to connect with folks in the EA community who crossed paths with Sam Bankman-Fried and thought this forum may be a good place to find them. 

If you fit that bill, please feel free to reach out. My contact information is 917-769-0847 or rachel.ensign@wsj.com

Rachel

21

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments15


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

A reminder to all that the Community Health team at CEA offers support and guidance for responding to media enquiries, and can be contacted by at media@centreforeffectivealtruism.org

Rachel, they also might be a helpful place to start for your enquiry.

You might want to try tracking down the people who participated in the FTX EA fellowship program, FTX advertised it in 2021 here:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sdjcH7KAxgB328RAb/ftx-ea-fellowships/

Thank you so much for sharing this. Do you know if anyone actually wound up participating in the program and how I might find who they were? 

To the rest of the forum: 

I strongly recommend people on the EA forum do not downvote outsiders, especially an actual WSJ journalist writing a story about EA, unless they actually post content that violate forum norms or rules.

 

I (very briefly) skimmed it and didn't see any major red flags. 

With less intensity, we should discourage the framing of "auditing" very established journalists for red flags, or create "whitelists" for such. There are situations this is valid (but not for the WSJ!). This is hard to calibrate and communicate.

 

Zooming out, there's a lot of say here about the voting and forum. There's this "beauty contest" that exists mainly inside the heads of a few on this forum. This behavior is entirely transparent and probably will backfire.

with less intensity, we should discourage the framing of 'auditing' very established journalists for red flags

 Why? If I was making a decision to be interviewed by Rachel or not, probably the top thing I'd be worried about is whether they've previously written not-very-journalistic hit pieces on tech-y people (which is not all critical pieces in general! some are pretty good and well researched). I agree that there's such thing as going too far, but I don't think my comment was doing that.  

I think "there are situations this is valid (but not for the WSJ!)" is wrong? There have been tons of examples of kind of crap articles in usually highly credible newspapers.  For example, this article in the NYT seemed to be pretty wrong and not that good

Why do people disagree with this comment so much? It's sitting at -11, but strikes me as a pretty valid contribution.

As far as I understand, almost no-one who participated in the FTX EA fellowship program "crossed paths with Sam Bankman-Fried"

trevor1
-16
3
15

I think it's worth mentioning that just yesterday, WSJ posted an article whose first paragraph depicted EA as banditry.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-frieds-crypto-con-sbf-indictment-ftx-alameda-research-bahamas-11670972815

Dozens of people interviewed by journalists from reputable news outlets over the last several years have claimed that their statements were taken out of context, occasionally in total contradiction to several promises and agreements that they made with the journalist before the interview.

There's no need to overcomplicate things; articles with funky villains get more clicks. It's as simple as that.

The first paragraph is this:

"If the rise of Sam Bankman-Fried was a modern tale about cryptocurrency tokens and “effective altruism,” his fall seems to be as old as original sin. “This is really old-fashioned embezzlement,” John Ray, the caretaker CEO of the failed crypto exchange FTX, told the House on Tuesday. “This is just taking money from customers and using it for your own purpose, not sophisticated at all.”"

I don't think that amounts to depicting EA as banditry. The subject is Sam Bankman-Fried, not the effective altruism movement.

In fact I would say that, despite the phrase 'effective altruism' appearing in the subtitle, the article is hardly about the movement at all. 

I just want to point out that story is from our editorial board, which is separate from our news division. 

I think it makes more sense to look at articles that Rachel has written about SBF/EA. Here's one:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-frieds-plans-to-save-the-world-went-down-in-flames-11669257574.

I (very briefly) skimmed it and didn't see any major red flags. 

I think this is a better article to link to https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-moral-vanity-of-sam-bankman-fried-delusion-charity-morals-big-think-ftx-cryptocurrency-twitter-philanthropy-11669846009 (unpaywalled: https://archive.ph/cLPvN )

“Sam Bankman-Fried said he wanted to prevent nuclear war and stop future pandemics.” It gives new meaning to thinking big. It’s also delusional, which has become a political characteristic of his generation.  [...]

It’s no surprise Mr. Bankman-Fried would think his cryptocurrency profits could prevent nuclear war. [...] He is describing what has come to be known in our time as virtue signaling, which is the current version of moral vanity—the presumption that doing good deserves the public’s support and esteem. But why has this urge to assert public virtue in outsize ways become a mass movement? People who did good used to be humble. Now they won’t get out of our faces.
One inevitably cynical answer is politics. The political left embraced the technique known as “controlling the narrative,” which is a euphemism for propaganda. The new element in our time is that these “narratives” always include sweeping, if vague, claims of moral certitude and superiority. [...]
The purpose of this moral grandiosity isn’t to engage one’s opponents but to marginalize them, to place them beyond the pale of what the new gatekeepers of virtue define as acceptable discourse. [...]
Overlooked in the Bankman-Fried saga is the implicit admission inside the idea of effective altruism that capitalism—for-profit enterprise—is the indispensable means to good ends.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Although some of the jokes are inevitably tasteless, and Zorrilla is used to set up punchlines, I enjoyed it and it will surely increase concerns and donations for shrimp. I'm not sure what impression the audience will have of EA in general.  Last week The Daily Show interviewed Rutger Bregman about his new book Moral Ambition (which includes a profile of Zorrilla and SWP). 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Americans, we need your help to stop a dangerous AI bill from passing the Senate. What’s going on? * The House Energy & Commerce Committee included a provision in its reconciliation bill that would ban AI regulation by state and local governments for the next 10 years. * Several states have led the way in AI regulation while Congress has dragged its heels. * Stopping state governments from regulating AI might be okay, if we could trust Congress to meaningfully regulate it instead. But we can’t. This provision would destroy state leadership on AI and pass the responsibility to a Congress that has shown little interest in seriously preventing AI danger. * If this provision passes the Senate, we could see a DECADE of inaction on AI. * This provision also violates the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule which is meant to prevent non-budget items from being included in the reconciliation bill.   What can I do? Here are 3 things you can do TODAY, in order of priority: 1. (5 minutes) Call and email both of your Senators. Tell them you oppose AI preemption, and ask them to raise a point of order that preempting state AI regulation violates the Byrd Rule. * Find your Senators here. * Here’s an example of a call:  “Hello, my name is {YOUR NAME} and I’m a resident of {YOUR STATE}. The newest budget reconciliation bill includes a 10-year ban pre-empting state AI legislation without establishing any federal guardrails. This is extremely concerning to me – leading experts warn us that AI could cause mass harm within the next few years, but this provision would prevent states from protecting their citizens from AI crises for the next decade. It also violates the Byrd Rule, since preempting state AI regulation doesn’t impact federal taxes or spending. I’d like the Senator to speak out against this provision and raise a point of order that this provision should not be included under the Byrd Rule.” See here for sample call + email temp
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism