DaneelO

57Joined Apr 2022

Bio

Long time lurker - infrequent poster

Programmer

Small-time earn to give

Comments
14

That is much harder for me to answer, since I am too young to know that. But I would also assume that he has not been completely isolated from Sweden since the 1980s, considering the fact that he has appeared in Swedish media from time to time and has family in Sweden.  So to be nitpicky back, while modeling him as an average Swede today might not be correct, modeling him as an average one (or young one) in the 80s is probably not also correct. 

I would also expect him to be a bit more interested in Swedish media than the average person since he has started a news aggregator for English language media, and as I wrote above has appeared in Swedish media from time to time. But maybe I am just projecting how I would think in his situation and he is not interested in the Swedish media landscape at all and only focuses on the American one since that is where he lives and works. Edit: and FLI was thinking of granting money to a Swedish org, so some interest in Swedish media has been shown from FLI at least.

I don't know — did they? The crux for me is whether Tegmark knew when he wrote his EA Forum comment that Sweden widely funds newspapers regardless of political view.  Tegmark lived in Sweden until age 23, so I'd be curious to know whether this is a universally known fact in Sweden, or whether it's more of a minor/obscure bit of trivia, or something in between.

 

Of course I cannot comment on what Tegmark knew or did not know. But as a Swede I can try to guess what an average Swede would be expected to think to try to answer this question. 

I think they would know what the mediestöd (Swedish Wikipedia) is and that is used to support the press and is independent of the current government in charge, left-wing or right-wing does not matter. Thus whichever parties happen to be in charge are not important, opposite to what he seemed to claim in his first post.

I also think that the average Swede would think that if a publication receives mediestöd, then it cannot be to crazy or extremist. Because giving them money would seem to be againswt common sense. The fact that this is not the case in reality and that some extremist publications have received money is probably not something most people know, since I don't think the debate and news about this have permeated to most people. But would expect someone who cares about politics or the media to know about it. It is something I know about and I am far from an expert in either politics or media, I am just interested. 

Thanks for clarifying. That makes it more nuanced. Then it seems like the statements were true but perhaps misleading.

I would also like to add the things expressed in this comment:

"Sam sleeps on a bean bag" and "Sam drives a Corolla" when I was quite confident that they knew that Sam was living in one of the most expensive and lavish properties in the Bahamas and was definitely not living a very frugal livestyle.

If this is true it would not be hard to fact check since many EAs knew SBF, and I got the impression from the interview that Rob knew SBF too. I don't know anything about the situation so I don't know what is true. All I know is that the episode gave me a very good impression of SBF and probably helped him build a good image among EAs.

I agree that it is less likely than Binance, based on the fact that public stock market companies are required to be more transparent[1], I do not know much about these particular companies.

  1. ^

     of course Enron, Wirecard and others show that being listed on the stock market is no guarantee

Yeah that makes sense, I think I overinterpreted your comments.

I agree with the point that in general one should expect less from "unsophisticated" investors/parties than from sophisticated ones. I do not disagree with that. 

I was disagreeing with "This just isn't plausible on reasonable priors." which seemed to mean that you disagreed with Stuart's comment.

But I also don't think VC scrutiny is necessarily a high bar in general in the absolute sense, and Stuart has posted some warning signs here in other comments such as the hiring of Friedberg. Then considering how important FTX and SBF was to the EA community it could have been investigated more, i.e. the  low VC scrutiny bar could have been surpassed by hiring experts or something similar. To a VC firm this is just another losing bet among many they expect to make. This is why I don't think the comparison with VC firms is very apt.

I would disagree, there are numerous examples such as Theranos and WeWork which show that sophisticated investors do not necessarily scrutinize potential investments thoroughly. Thus I don't think assuming they do is a good prior. I think this is actually a reason these problems happen, since everyone else assumes that Respectable Company/Person X has scrutinized it.

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. 

Load More