The #SBF (#FTX) conundrum might be solvable by throwing these propositions into the mix:
1. He's “earning to give”
1. He's an utilitarian
1. He thinks that “the end justifies the means”
1. 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 I think the flaw in his reasoning is simply second order effects. Being deceptive and risking people's investments can make altruists seem reckless and untrustworthy, and I don't think this bodes well for future (public) effective altruists.
@tripu Also, it does seem reckless, because he couldn't know who had invested in those funds really, it's not wise to be such a judge I think.
@tripu Finally, I think this misses the point of EA which is inviting everyone to cooperate and donate to ones in most need, not steal from a minority -- even if it were a deserving one -- which is a much more robust, longlasting and reliable solution to improving the world, I believe. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you! I think I mostly agree with you.
Definitely #SBF's behaviour is not condoned by #EffectiveAltruism per se: not all EAs are consequentialists, utilitarians or risk-neutral — and even those who are, probably would have made different decisions, influenced also by common-sense morality and/or by moral uncertainty.
What I find fascinating is that his decision algorithm (or the one I presume he had) seems robust to me, and (perhaps) he failed “only” in weighing the terms of the equation appropriately, or in coming up with good estimates. Or perhaps his math was indeed perfect, and we just happen to live in that one universe where luck played against him!
I'm sure he throw “possible reputational damage to EA” into the equation. Given all we know about him, how could he not?
@tripu I don't think it's robust because he (#SBF) couldn't possibly solve the world's problems single-handedly. This wasn't an all or nothing for the future of mankind. But the idea of #EffectiveAltruism itself could be of fundamental importance to humanity's future, so I don't think this strategy is warranted, except in more clear cases where a good future for humanity were decisively at stake.