undefined | Better HN

0 pointspolygamous_bat3y ago0 comments

> Is the logical conclusion really that because other EAs couldn't recognize SBF as a scammer, we should not even try to measure the impact of charitable donations?

My (logical) conclusion is that since other EAs couldn't recognize SBF as a scammer, we should double- and triple-check all of their math about risk and effectiveness, instead of trusting them. Not saying the idea of charitable giving has lost merit, rather its primary champions in the last decade have lost a ton of credibility.

0 comments

eddsh19943y ago

I think one strong argument against this is SBF/FTX was highly funded by sophisticated investors and VCs. If they didn't catch it, why should anyone else? People believed FTX was making money through tx fees and front-running via Alameda. The classic "due diligence was done by others" scenario.

Saying this, people were skeptical of SBF in EA, worried about so many eggs in one basket, and didn't like crypto as a source of funding. It's a large group with many views!

I agree with double- and triple-checking all the math about risk and effectiveness. I'm interested in donating to effective charities that use my dollar in the best way and if you correctly find better ones to do so I'd donate :)

yboris3y ago

Are you suggesting that the skill of detecting a scammer (who actively was giving away large amount of money - using a very strong, costly signal) and the skill of estimating effectiveness are similar enough that having an example in failure of one suggests trouble for the other?!

lern_too_spel3y ago

Is it more beneficial for EAs to check the math of charities or to check the math of other people claiming to be EAs by gaining unauthorized access to their financial data?

polygamous_batOP3y ago

When you are putting all your metaphorical eggs on one FTX baskets by relying on SBF to run your high profile programs, I would say you should ask hard questions or diversify. Then again, my risk assessment is different from EAs, which is why I propose triple checking their math.

ben_w3y ago

> I would say you should ask hard questions or diversify

Sure, but… how? How does one magic up a backup multibillionaire just in case the first surprise super-donor turned out to be less than half as smart as he thought he was?

(Definitely triple check their maths. And the assumptions too: in my experience, a lot of things are lost in the unstated assumptions of groups and individuals).

lern_too_spel3y ago

Now you're confusing the receivers of the donations with the people who make charitable donations. What should the people who make charitable donations do that is better than EA? People who receive charitable donations from people who do not subscribe to EA have the same problem with diversification.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

eddsh19943y ago

Saying this, people were skeptical of SBF in EA, worried about so many eggs in one basket, and didn't like crypto as a source of funding. It's a large group with many views!

yboris3y ago

lern_too_spel3y ago

Is it more beneficial for EAs to check the math of charities or to check the math of other people claiming to be EAs by gaining unauthorized access to their financial data?

polygamous_batOP3y ago

ben_w3y ago

> I would say you should ask hard questions or diversify

Sure, but… how? How does one magic up a backup multibillionaire just in case the first surprise super-donor turned out to be less than half as smart as he thought he was?

(Definitely triple check their maths. And the assumptions too: in my experience, a lot of things are lost in the unstated assumptions of groups and individuals).

lern_too_spel3y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse