Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
DaneelO8
4
0

I agree. A common trope in EA is that we don't just give money to any charity because it "feels good", we want it to be effective so we investigate and analyze deeply before giving. In same vain, if we want to prevent bad things from happening we need to implement well structured institutions and perform due diligence, even if it "feels less good" than trusting without verifying does. 

Reply
See in context
by michel
3 min read 9

176

CommunityFTX collapseFTX FoundationSam Bankman-Fried
Frontpage

I can’t work today. I knew I wouldn’t be able to work as soon as I woke up. The ordinary tasks I’d dedicate myself to feel so distant from the shitshow unfolding as I sit at my desk.

The news of FTXs unraveling hit me hard. Most immediately, I feel for the people who entrusted their life savings to an organization that didn’t deserve their trust.

It’s easy to extrapolate from the twitter updates I scroll past of people’s net worth halving in hours, of people frantically trying to withdraw money they’re not sure exists anymore: people’s lives just got ruined. Families will struggle to send their kids to college. Young adults will need to take on new jobs to stay afloat. Poor parents who looked at FTX for a way out will lose their trust and so much more in a system that continues to fail them. I hope those responsible for gambling money that wasn’t theirs to gamble are held responsible, and I dearly hope FTX can find a way to repay the people who trusted them.

I grieve for those who trusted in FTX, and that includes people in the effective altruism community. We’re not the victims – we benefited incredibly from Sam Bankman–Fried and others at FTX over the past years. But, to my knowledge[1], we had no idea that what appears to be fraud at this level was a possibility when we signed onto a billionaire’s backing. Money changes the world, and I don’t hate us for getting it. Up until this week, I had a very favorable impression of Sam Bankman-Fried. I saw him as an altruist who encapsulated what it meant to think big. No longer; doing good means acting with integrity. This feels like the moment that you learn that a childhood hero of yours might be no hero after all.

A lot just changed. Projects from people in the effective altruism community that I think would have genuinely improved the world, like pandemic preparedness initiatives and charity startups, may be delayed for years – or never arrive at all. Our community's entire trust networks, emphasis on ambition, and expectation that standout ideas need not be held back my insufficient funds feel as if they’re beginning to shake, and it’s not clear how much they’ll withstand over the coming months. At a personal level, too, those grant applications I’ve been waiting on to fund my past months of independent work seem awfully precarious. I know I’ll be fine, but others won’t be, including the people alive today and far beyond tomorrow who aspiring effective altruists are trying to help.

That’s something that weighs on me: while so much feels like it’s changed, the problems in this world haven’t. People will still die from preventable diseases today; we’ll still experience a background noise of nuclear armageddon threats tomorrow; and emerging technologies coming in the next decades could still pose a threat to all sentient life.

It’s in this context – a community that implicitly trusted FTX in their efforts to do good being shaken up and the world’s problems staying awfully still – that I’m drawn back to effective altruism’s core project: trying to improve the world as much as we can with the resources that we have.

Amidst everything shaking right now, I notice my personal commitment to effective altruism's ideals standing still. And I can picture my friends' commitments to effective altruism's ideals standing steadfast too. Over the past two years, engaging with this community has introduced me to some of the most incredible, kind-hearted people I know. I haven’t talked to many of them as I’ve tried to gather my thoughts over the past day, but I bet they too are still committed to creating a world better than the one they were born into.

Absolutely, we’ll all need to reassess how we bring our altruistic projects to life and who we trust to back us. I'd be surprised if we don't uncover mistakes our community made over the past months, and I understand if people come to hate us by association with FTX. But I hope that if people outside the effective altruism community look closely, they’ll see that we too are upset, that we don’t endorse the ends justifying the means, and that behind the name “EA” there’s a group of people who really fucking care.

I’ll take some time away from work today, but I hope to get back to it soon.

  1. ^

    How much EA leaders knew about the business dealings that preceded FTXs downfall is a key question we need to be asking ourselves right now. I think we need to be very transparent here.

176

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments9


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Kaleem46
10
0

Thank you for writing this - it articulates so many things that I have also been feeling and thinking over the past few days, in a way that I wouldn't have been able to. I hope I'm not mistaken in sensing that you hold some optimism and hope even during this tumultuous time - if so, you're not alone. I think that fellow EAs who resonate with these sentiments will emerge at the end of this storm with the same convictions and moral beliefs that lead us here, and that things will be ok.

Reply
Sam Elder39
15
0

This is a good start. But in my opinion, the questions we need to wrestle with are more structural.

For instance, when EA (as a collection of institutions and individuals) was considering taking donations from a single donor to the extent SBF offered, what due diligence did we attempt to go through of the business practices of Alameda and FTX? Was this failure a case of blind trust, a coordination failure (surely Sequoia Capital did their due diligence…), or a known, calculated risk?

I see a lot of attempts to clarify that fraud is bad. But if we actually believe that, what attempts have there been to actually check whether fraud was occurring until this week? If we were genuinely caught off-guard, what did we previously believe about the actual business of FTX?

It seems like at the very least our baseline expectation should have featured a much higher degree of skepticism than seems to have been brought to the whole endeavor of entrusting a decent chunk of the financing and reputation of the entire EA movement to an offshore crypto business.

Reply
DaneelO8
4
0

I agree. A common trope in EA is that we don't just give money to any charity because it "feels good", we want it to be effective so we investigate and analyze deeply before giving. In same vain, if we want to prevent bad things from happening we need to implement well structured institutions and perform due diligence, even if it "feels less good" than trusting without verifying does. 

Reply
Sam Elder4
2
0

Yes, we need to apply similarly rigorous analysis to our (major) sources of funding as we do to the destinations of that funding.

Reply
michel4
1
0

Yup, I agree. This post was written as a more personal response to a disorienting situation.

Let the investigations and reevaluations ensue.

Reply
leosn12
2
0

I work in crypto media. Worth noting that EA didn't just benefit from FTX, it created FTX. Jaan loaned Alameda $50m to do the original Bitcoin arbitrage, FTX founded on the back of that with nigh a dozen EAs. Source from Sequoia archives blog below https://archive.ph/qFJJN#selection-163.0-168.0

Reply
Will Bradshaw11
3
0

Thank you for writing this.

Reply
pete8
2
0

I cleared my calendar yesterday just to grieve. I relived losing family to the pandemic, thinking of all the resources lost for pandemic prevention.

It’s true that there’s work to be done, but grief is heavy, and if we don’t deal with it honestly we’ll pay dividends later.

Reply
Miguel8
5
0

As a guy who failed a business 5 years ago, accepting the situation for what it is - no matter how hard it is have helped me go to the next step. Losing money is the sublayer of the issue but the bigger downfall can rise from us losing our values that kept us moving towards the right direction. There is no one size fits all acceptance mechanism but the sooner one gets to admit how painful a certain situation is - the faster the recovery will be..

Reply
More from michel
95
The Case for Journalism on AI
michel
· · 4m read
5
5
312
I saved a kid’s life today
michel
· · 2m read
17
17
67
Sharing the AI Windfall: A Strategic Approach to International Benefit-Sharing
michel
· · 16m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Summary Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants. A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour. These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF. There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Summary: The NAO will increase our sequencing significantly over the next few months, funded by a $3M grant from Open Philanthropy. This will allow us to scale our pilot early-warning system to where we could flag many engineered pathogens early enough to mitigate their worst impacts, and also generate large amounts of data to develop, tune, and evaluate our detection systems. One of the biological threats the NAO is most concerned with is a 'stealth' pathogen, such as a virus with the profile of a faster-spreading HIV. This could cause a devastating pandemic, and early detection would be critical to mitigate the worst impacts. If such a pathogen were to spread, however, we wouldn't be able to monitor it with traditional approaches because we wouldn't know what to look for. Instead, we have invested in metagenomic sequencing for pathogen-agnostic detection. This doesn't require deciding what sequences to look for up front: you sequence the nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) and analyze them computationally for signs of novel pathogens. We've primarily focused on wastewater because it has such broad population coverage: a city in a cup of sewage. On the other hand, wastewater is difficult because the fraction of nucleic acids that come from any given virus is very low,[1] and so you need quite deep sequencing to find something. Fortunately, sequencing has continued to come down in price, to under $1k per billion read pairs. This is an impressive reduction, 1/8 of what we estimated two years ago when we first attempted to model the cost-effectiveness of detection, and it makes methods that rely on very deep sequencing practical. Over the past year, in collaboration with our partners at the University of Missouri (MU) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI), we started to sequence in earnest: We believe this represents the majority of metagenomic wastewater sequencing produced in the world to date, and it's an incredibly rich dataset. It has allowed us to develop
Linch
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Remember: There is no such thing as a pink elephant. Recently, I was made aware that my “infohazards small working group” Signal chat, an informal coordination venue where we have frank discussions about infohazards and why it will be bad if specific hazards were leaked to the press or public, accidentally was shared with a deceitful and discredited so-called “journalist,” Kelsey Piper. She is not the first person to have been accidentally sent sensitive material from our group chat, however she is the first to have threatened to go public about the leak. Needless to say, mistakes were made. We’re still trying to figure out the source of this compromise to our secure chat group, however we thought we should give the public a live update to get ahead of the story.  For some context the “infohazards small working group” is a casual discussion venue for the most important, sensitive, and confidential infohazards myself and other philanthropists, researchers, engineers, penetration testers, government employees, and bloggers have discovered over the course of our careers. It is inspired by taxonomies such as professor B******’s typology, and provides an applied lens that has proven helpful for researchers and practitioners the world over.  I am proud of my work in initiating the chat. However, we cannot deny that minor mistakes and setbacks may have been made over the course of attempting to make the infohazards widely accessible and useful to a broad community of people. In particular, the deceitful and discredited journalist may have encountered several new infohazards previously confidential and unleaked: * Mirror nematodes as a solution to mirror bacteria. "Mirror bacteria," synthetic organisms with mirror-image molecules, could pose a significant risk to human health and ecosystems by potentially evading immune defenses and causing untreatable infections. Our scientists have explored engineering mirror nematodes, a natural predator for mirror bacteria, to
Relevant opportunities
5
MATS is hiring!
Ryan Kidd
·
0
0
47
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
8
8
10
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
1
1
View more