Agreed. My view here is pretty uninformed.
If taking your lawyer's advice, in this case, means being silent for 5-7 years, it seems like some people should speak openly and bear the costs.
Why are so many people disagreeing with this?
Habryka, feel free to answer my question on this short form, so that GoodEAGoneBad's heart doesn't have to suffer any further.
Post for people to have a go at one another. (Context)
I'd be interested to hear what you think is going wrong with Paul's writing style, if you want to share.
Hm, yeah I guess my intuition is the opposite. To me, one of the central parts of effective altruism is that it's impartial, meaning we shouldn't put some people's welfare over other's.
I think in this case it's particularly important to be impartial, because EA is a group of people that benefitted a lot from FTX, so it seems wrong for us to try to transfer the harms it is now causing onto other people.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding bank runs, but as I understand it, they happen because
I think the reason Richard listed #2 as a preference is that there might still be hope that FTX doesn't run out of money in the first place and no one loses their deposits.
However, it might be FTX will run out of money either way. In that case, speeding up the bank run will lead some people to get more their money back, but only because they pick it up before other people do. In the end it's a zero-sum game, because FTX only has a limited amount of liquid currency. If my model is correct, then there is no net benefit in speeding up the bank run.
Or better yet, at Y Combinator.
For Level 3: Machine Learning, this document might be useful. It provides a quick summary/recap of a lot of the math required for ML.