Tobias Häberli

978 karmaJoined Dec 2018Bern, Switzerland


My hope and expectation is that neither will be focused on EA

I'd be surprised [p<0.1] if EA was not a significant focus of the Michael Lewis book – but agree that it's unlikely to be the major topic. Many leaders at FTX and Alameda Research are closely linked to EA. SBF often, and publically, said that effective altruism was a big reason for his actions. His connection to EA is interesting both for understanding his motivation and as a story-telling element. There are Manifold prediction markets on whether the book would mention 80'000h (74%), Open Philanthropy (74%), and Give Well (80%), but these markets aren't traded a lot and are not very informative.[1]

This video titled The Fake Genius: A $30 BILLION Fraud (2.8 million views, posted 3 weeks ago) might give a glimpse of how EA could be handled. The video touches on EA but isn't centred on it. It discusses the role EAs played in motivating SBF to do earning to give, and in starting Alameda Research and FTX. It also points out that, after the fallout at Alameda Research, 'higher-ups' at CEA were warned about SBF but supposedly ignored the warnings. Overall, the video is mainly interested in the mechanisms of how the suspected fraud happened, where EA is only one piece of the puzzle. One can equally get a sense of "EA led SBF to do fraud" as "SBF used EA as a front to do fraud".

The book description[2] "mentions "philanthropy", makes it clear that it's mainly about SBF and not FTX as a firm, and describes the book as partly a psychological portrait.

  1. ^

    I also created a similar market for CEA, but with 2 mentions as the resolving criteria. One mention is very likely as SBF worked briefly for them.

  2. ^

    "In Going Infinite Lewis sets out to answer this question, taking readers into the mind of Bankman-Fried, whose rise and fall offers an education in high-frequency trading, cryptocurrencies, philanthropy, bankruptcy, and the justice system. Both psychological portrait and financial roller-coaster ride, Going Infinite is Michael Lewis at the top of his game, tracing the mind-bending trajectory of a character who never liked the rules and was allowed to live by his own—until it all came undone."

(Not sure if this is within the scope of what you're looking for. )
I'd be excited about having something like a roundtable with people who have been through 80'000h advising – talking about how their thinking about their career has changed, advice for people in a similar situation, etc. I'd imagine this could be a good fit for 80k After Hours?

On Microsoft Edge (the browser) there's a "read aloud" option that offers a range of natural voices for websites and PDFs. It's only slightly worse than speechify and free – and can give a glimpse of whether $139/year might be worth it for you.

I think that a very simplified ordering for how to impress/gain status within EA is:

Disagreement well-justified ≈ Agreement well-justified >>> Agreement sloppily justified > Disagreement sloppily justified

Looking back on my early days interacting with EAs, I generally couldn't present well-justified arguments. I then did feel pressure to agree on shaky epistemic grounds. Because I sometimes disagreed nevertheless, I suspect that some parts of the community were less accessible to me back then.

I'm not sure about what hurdles to overcome if you want EA communities to push towards 'Agreement sloppily justified' and 'Disagreement sloppily justified' being treated similarly.

As far as I understand, the paper doesn't disagree with this and an explanation for it is given in the conclusion:

Communication strategies such as the ‘funnel model’ have facilitated the enduring perception amongst the broader public, academics and journalists that ‘EA’ is synonymous with ‘public-facing EA’. As a result, many people are confused by EA’s seemingly sudden shift toward ‘longtermism’, particularly AI/x-risk; however, this ‘shift’ merely represents a shift in EA’s communication strategy to more openly present the movement’s core aims.

The low number of human-shrimp connections may be due to the attendance dip in 2020. Shrimp have understandably a difficult relationship with dips.

There is a comprehensive process in place... it is a cohesive approach to aligning font, but thank you for the drama!

Insiders know that EA NYC has ambitious plans to sprout a whole network of Bodhi restaurants. To those who might criticize this blossoming "bodhi count," let's not indulge in shaming their gastronomic promiscuity. After all, spreading delicious vegan dim sum and altruism is something we can all savour.

I find the second one more readable. 

Might be due to my display: If I zoom into the two versions, the second version separates letters better.

But you're also right, that we'll get used to most changes :)

I find the font to be less readable and somewhat clunky. 
Can't quite express why it feels that way. It reminds me of display scaling issues, where your display resolution doesn't match the native resolution.

Load more