The #SBF (#FTX) conundrum might be solvable by throwing these propositions into the mix:
- He’s “earning to give”
- He’s an utilitarian
- He thinks that “the end justifies the means”
- He’s explicitly risk-neutral
He simply computed the probability of getting away with financial engineering and deception times the potential increase in well-being (by tossing billions at #EffectiveAltruism causes), and that seemed to him higher than the odds of being caught times {investors and customers’ funds lost plus the huge reputational damage that would inflict to the #EA cause}.
So he pressed the red button and bet the world. And he lost.
It’s not trivial to find the flaw in his reasoning, though.
@tripu Is there any strong hint he actually wanted to be altruistic? I only heard the bancrupcy news, nothing about motives yet.
He was a utilitarian from the cradle, an EA before he was a billionaire, and used to donate a lot of his income. Apparently Alameda Research donated 50% of their profits in the early days, too. After he became so wealthy he donated a lot of money to EA-approved organisations.
That at least seems true. It would be impossible to bribe or deceive so many people and organisations who, by all we know, did receive actual money from him already.
