Hide table of contents

Covered here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/in-new-interview-sbf-talks-gop-donations-fraud-polyamory.html

And here: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/29/sam-bankman-fried-addresses-withdrawals-ftx-collapse-in-newly-released-audio-interview/

Disclaimer: My transcriptions might contain some inaccuracies.

The section beginning 11:31 in the second interview might be especially interesting for the readers of the forum. From this and other publicly available information, it seems likely to me that Sam acted as a naive consequentialist. This, of course, isn't mutually exclusive with having elevated dark triad traits (as mentioned here and here). 

Quotes from that section:

"Honestly, I like, right now, I'm mostly focusing on, what I can do, and like, where I can be helpful, and like, it's... there will be a time and a place for (...) ruminating on my future, but [sighs] I, right now it's more one foot in front of the other, and you know, trying to be as helpful and constructive as I can, and uh, that's all I can do for now, and there's no (...) I don't know what the future will hold for me - it's pretty unclear - it's certainly not the future I once thought it was (...) my future is not the thing that [inaudible] not the thing that matters here - what matters is the world's future -I'm much more worried about the damage that I did to that than whatever happens to me personally."

"I made a decision a while ago that like, I was gonna, like you know, spend my life trying to do what I could for the world, and like obviously it hasn't turned out like how I had hoped." 

"I feel really really bad for the people who trusted me and believed in me, and, then, you know, we're trying to do great things for the world and tied it to me - and that got, you know, undermined so I fucked up.  And that's like... I don't know, that's the shittiest part of it. If it were just myself that it hurt, like, then whatever, but it wasn't."

 

Other highlights:

Sam claims that he donated to Republicans: "I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties (...) That was not generally known (...) All my Republican donations were dark (...) and the reason was not for regulatory reasons - it's just that reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans [inaudible] they're all liberal, and I didn't want to have that fight". (EDIT: My initial interpretation of this was that Sam believed that some Republicans would be helpful to fund to advance altruistic causes he supports, e.g. pandemic prevention, which may suggest donating for reasons other than public image. A comment below pushes back at my idea that the potential selfish reasons to donate can only be because of PR reasons, and notes that donating to both parties is a common practice among corporations/powerful individuals pursued for self-interested reasons. It is also possible that it could be for both self-interested and altruistic reasons, in addition to one, or the other.)

In response to to his lawyers' advice regarding his public apologies, Sam says he told his lawyers "to go fuck [themselves]" and claims that they "know what they talk about in extremely narrow domain of litigation - they don't understand the broader context of the world, like, if you're a complete dick about everything, even if it narrowly avoids maybe moderately embarrassing statements, it's not helping [mostly inaudible - but maybe he said 'any of them'?]".

Sam describes the collapse as a "risk management failure". Fong asks: "I mean, you can't be the only person that was like, aware - in charge of all of this." Sam replies: "I think the bigger problem was that there was no [...] person who was chiefly in charge of monitoring the risk of margin positions on FTX. Like there should have been but there wasn't". Later, Sam also says "at the same time, I think, you know, we stretched ourselves too thin. And we're doing a lot of things at the company - and, you know, I think we should have cut a few of them out and focus more on making sure that the fundamental, like, the most important things we were doing well at". Malice and incompetence can mix and match, so that might be the case (in addition to a lack of moral qualms).

 

Other relevant videos from Fong:

Why is Sam Bankman-Fried Talking To Me? (AUDIO CLIP) Phone Call with SBF - Former FTX CEO / Founder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHtThZ4717U

CONTEXT: My Phone Call with SBF / Sam Bankman-Fried- Former CEO of FTX - Phone Calls About Ch 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk3QQ1_9xw 

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for the link and highlights!

Sam claims that he donated to Republicans: "I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties (...) That was not generally known (...) All my Republican donations were dark (...) and the reason was not for regulatory reasons - it's just that reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans [inaudible] they're all liberal, and I didn't want to have that fight". If true, this seems to fit the notion that Sam didn't just donate to look good (i.e. he donated at least partly because of his personal altruistic beliefs)

What do you mean that this donation strategy would be from Sam's "personal altruistic beliefs"? Donating equally to both political parties has been a common strategy among major corporations for a long time. It's a way for them to push their own agenda in government. It's generally an amoral self-interested strategy, not an altruistic one.

I read somewhere (sorry can’t remember where) that he only donated to republicans that were pushing longtermist things like pandemic preparedness

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about that. I've added your observations to that part.

In this case, it seems like a very good strategy for the world, too, in that it doesn't politicize one issue too much (like climate change has been in the US because it was tied to Democrats instead of both sides of the aisle).

I don’t think we should give too much information value to SBF's interviews, considering his track record and his writing that ethics was mostly a front to build his reputation.

It might be useful to note that from the context of the Kelsey Piper interview, "ethics" might have referred to the ethics of 'rule-following/deontology" (also noted here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vjyWBnCmXjErAN6sZ/kelsey-piper-s-recent-interview-of-sbf?commentId=ZqbYkJrmeRNnmaoio). The part where he sounds like he's talking about EA (he doesn't mention EA directly in the video) would be consistent with that particular interpretation of "ethics was mostly a front".

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism