> effective altruism who seems to be part of a conspiracy to have pilfered billions of dollars from investor
If I'm understanding you correctly - which perhaps I'm not - I don't know as I agree. Are you saying that the concept of "effective altruism" is "part of a consp..."?
The concept of effective altruism, as far as I know, is simply to maximize the good-accomplished-per-dollar. In the past, after being pointed there by proponents of effective altruism, I've donated to organizations giving malaria nets, etc.
If you are saying this, I'd appreciate knowing more about what backs up your claim.
But if you're saying that there's some entity cloaking itself as 'effective altruism' but carrying out a Ponzi scheme, then that I'd have no opinion on.
I think the argument is that a huge number of the EA types have been caught without their pants on in the FTX / SBF / Alameda fiasco. Those like Will McAskill have distanced themselves, but it still gives the collection of people a look that isn't great, even if it doesn't tarnish the conceptual basis of EA, as philosophized. Perhaps in practice, maximizing wealth leads ones to do morally sketchy things under the moral cover of maximizing good.
But it does kind of feel like whenever you package and reallocate some risk, there is some tradeoff in which you might be increasing systemic risk but it's opaque and hard to measure.
This is crazy in the same review than the one that's talking about fiduciary duties.
CEO of Alameda, one of the companies related to FTX and which just filed for bankruptcy after losing billions of dollars from alleged misuse of customer funds (ponzi scheme).
There's a whole controversy brewing with her and Sam Bankman-Fried. If you look on Twitter people are digging up all kinds of questionable interviews and such from both of these folks where they basically admit and lay out in detail how they're running an alleged ponzi scheme. People are digging up all kinds of fascinating dirt.