205 karmaJoined


Oops, thank you! I thought I had selected linkpost, but maybe I unselected without noticing. Fixed!

Thanks! FWIW, I completely agree with your framing. In my head the question was about debate ("did FTX look sketchy enough that we should've seen big debates about it on the forum") and I should've made that explicit. Sounds like the majority answer so far is yes, it did look that bad. My impression is also the same as yours that those debates did not happen.

My (possibly wrong) understanding of what Eliezer is saying:

FTX ought to have responded internally to the conflict of interest, but they had no obligation to disclose it externally (to Future Fund staff or wider EA community).

The failure in FTX was that they did not implement the right internal controls—not that the relationship was "hidden from investors and other stakeholders."

If EA leadership and FTX investors made a mistake, it was failing to ensure that FTX had implemented the right internal controls—not failing to know about the relationship.

Great idea!

Jump on a Zoom Call once a week with a carefully chosen peer for 1:1s and a group of 5-8 like-minded EAs with the same goal

Is this a group program, or one-on-one, or some of each? Is the "carefully chosen peer" matched with you for all 4–8 weeks?

What type or granularity of goal are you referring to?

Oops, thank you! Not sure what I was thinking. Fixed now.

Overall agreed, except that I'm not sure the idea of patient longtermism does anything to defend longtermism against Aron's criticism? By my reading of Aron's post, the assumptions there are that people in the future will have a lot of wealth to deal with problems of their time, compared to what we have now—which would make investing resources for the future (patient longtermism) less effective than spending them right away.

I think your point is broadly valid, Aron: if we knew that the future would get richer and more altruistically-minded as you describe, then we would want to focus most of our resources on helping people in the present.

But if we're even a little unsure—say, there's just a 1% chance that the future is not rich and altruistic—then we might still have very strong reason to put our resources toward making the future better: because the future is (in expectation) so big, if there's anything at all we can do to influence it, that could be very important.

And to me it seems pretty clear that the chance of a bad future is quite a bit more than 1%, which further strengthens the case.

Wow, I'm glad I noticed Vegan Nutrition in among the winners. Many thanks to Elizabeth for writing, and I hope it will eventually appear as a post. A few months ago I spent some time looking around the forum for exactly this and gave up—in hindsight, I should've been asking why it didn't exist!

I'm starting to think there's no possible question for which Will can't come up with an answer that's true, useful, and crowd-pleasing. We're lucky to have him!

Load more