site banner
suy  2yr ago (astralcodexten.substack.com)   Edited 2yr ago   4228 thread views

Scott Alexander on Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX and Effective Altruism

astralcodexten.substack.com

I made this a top level post because I think people here might want to discuss it but you can remove it if it doesn't meet your standards.

Edit: removed my opinion of Scott from the body

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reading Scott's post about feeling anxious and betrayed made me think back to Zero HP Lovecraft's tweet about the quokka, the Australian mammal. I don't have much else to say besides how frustrating it is to see a full grown adult act so naively. Don't have much charity left for someone so easily manipulated.

I do think Scott tends to be ever so slightly on the neurotic/dramatic side. Especially with his "hiding under the bed gibbering" speak. But I don't think he is intellectually naive. Just outwardly neurotic in a way that is offputting for those who are highly disagreeable and not neurotic.

Let's take some of the heat off the EA types for the moment. There were lots of people happy to take FTX money, and lots of people investing in and trading with and being paid for services by FTX, and they were not all Rationalists or EA by any means.

The SEC looks like it might be coming in for a smack on the wrist, if rumours are to be believed.

I think you kinda underestimate how easy is to manipulate a grown adult outside of their area of expertise. Especially if the manipulation is towards the result that they want to achieve (which is how any skillful conman would do it). Especially if the target is commonly living in a low-threat environment where it's usually ok to trust people and most of people you encounter aren't actually out to get you. It's probably easier to manipulate a very smart professor than a very dumb prison inmate - because the latter won't just believe any word you say regardless of what you say, just on general principle that they don't know you.

I think the point is more about the degree of Scott's emotional investment, and the nature of his emotional reaction, rather than the mere fact that he made poor judgement calls in an area outside of his expertise.

People let other people down all the time, whether it's through malice or incompetence. The world is filled with unscrupulous individuals, especially the world of the rich and powerful and well-connected. Just because someone SAYS they follow the principles of EA and rationalism doesn't mean they're actually a good person. How could someone with Scott's erudition fail to realize that? How could he not be emotionally prepared for an outcome like that? I think that was the point of suy's comment.

I think it's matching the environment. In Scott's environment, most people aren't highly skilled sociopath conmen, so trusting people makes sense. The reverse side of it is that once in a while there will be a highly skilled sociopath conman that will totally take advantage. I'm not sure I can really tell this way is better than be eternally suspicious and distrusting and live all your life on guard against the conmen - but I think both models have their tradeoffs and both are plausible.

I think you kinda underestimate how easy is to manipulate a grown adult outside of their area of expertise.

Completely agree. I've devoted my previous posts to try to get people to doubt things they assume as 100% certain, and the end result is that no one wants to do that.

It seems pretty clear to me that even the most rational and intelligent people on the planet will believe whatever they want to believe as long as it feels good.

I think the point there was not that no one wants to do that, but no one wants to assign a profound importance to banalities.

Are you 100% certain it was a banality?

I'm 98.45730468302835030019% certain.

Good. So you accept it's possible there's importance in the nuance.

Considering things like Epstein's whole shtick, I have to wonder how on earth one makes themselves manipulation-proof. The only way I can think of is what I'm going to call the Hedgehog Method: become so guardedly anti-social that no one can get into your life enough to ruin it.

One good heuristic is to be slightly more suspicious of individuals with frizzy hair and strangely shaped ears/nose. It works for Epstein, Bankman, Weinstein, or even Sasha Baron Cohen.

Alright, you've been warned about derogatory tropes and antagonism, and you've been warned about darkly hinting weakman opinions about your outgroup. Now you're just being racist, which puts you under be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary and provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.

Read the rules carefully and stop doing this sort of thing. This time you're getting a three-day ban.

I have to wonder how on earth one makes themselves manipulation-proof.

2:44 in this clip:

https://www.facebook.com/all4/videos/father-ted-best-of-mrs-doyle/2257104681223313/

"Maybe I like the misery!"

Honestly, just a reasonable awareness of bad actors is sufficient, when paired with a willingness to make that call if something is unusual. Speaking as a recovered quokka, it doesn't take much cynicism to protect yourself from threats above the level of, say, being on the hook for an extra appetizer. You just have to actually apply that whole reductionism thing and remember that defection and parasitism are proven strategies.

I hate to say it but yeah, that's been a viable strategy for me.

I have erected thick layers of defensive cynicism which leads me to constantly question other person's motivations, assume they are self interested and at best looking to extract money from me, that they will use any piece or private or personal information you divulge against me in this quest.

No hero worship. Nobody is going to intervene on my behalf, and likewise I feel less inclined to intervene on others' behalf if I do not expect reciprocation.

I am the tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness strategy made flesh.

There's been enough instances of my trust being earned and broken that I have to expect and prepare for it to occur more often than I' d like.

But the other side of this is that it leads me to place extra value on longstanding friendships that have stood the test of time, and become particularly protective of said relationships.

I don't prefer this way of being, but if I hadn't learned to stop being naive I'd have been blown up long ago.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats