The #SBF (#FTX) conundrum might be solvable by throwing these propositions into the mix:
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 this meant as “all disappears” saying all existing earths, with no way to select one of many (from previous wins) as the one you gamble with?
If that is the case, the math is pretty badly against it, as the chance to destroy the whole universe (assumed as negative) approaches 1 soon. Not something one would have to think about much to understand.
@tripu Well, with a one-off bet, it would simply be the question “Do you want to win something more than you want to not loose everything.”
The rest of this you have taken in another direction that i also agree with. “Win a little or lose a little, that’s ok” is something i would also say.
But just the idea that there are consecutive all-or-nothing bets that include betting the base that was there before just does not make sense mathematically. No matter how much one values anything, if it is ok to lose it, you have no expected value if step n takes everything you ever won.
I’m not good at formal math, but i would guess you had to lower the expected value of step n-1 if you do a step n by the probability to loose everything in step n.
Like in step 1, you expect 0.51 * 2 = 1.02 value. But if you actually do two steps, your expectation of getting zero is now 0.49 + (0.49^2). Am i doing this right? It should slowly approach 1 for expecting to get nothing at all.
Still onboard with the “scam scammers to donate to a good cause” thing, though.