Jamie Loftus

I think it's hard to justify being risk averse on your own personal impact, SBF told me when I quizzed him about it, unless you're doing it for personal reasons.

In other words, it's selfish not to go for broke if you're planning on giving it all away in the end anyway.

Again, just...

Clown shit.

So all of this is a con.

Spoiler.

So you don't have to think that much about it.

In a recent series of text messages with a Vox journalist after his entire exchange exploded and everyone found out he was a financial criminal, Sam Bankman Freed more or less admitted that everything he'd had to say about effective altruism was a con meant to get people to trust him and invest in his company.

And I'm going to read the text.

Yeah, I'm going to read the text to you between him and this journalist who, by the way, he put money in the box.

So he helped fund this journalist.

Wow.

So the ethics stuff, this is the journalist.

So the ethics stuff, mostly a front.

People will like you if you win and hate you if you lose.

And that's how it all really works.

Sam, yeah, I mean, that's not all of it, but it's a lot.

The worst quadrant is sketchy and lose.

The best is win plus question mark, question mark, question mark.

Clean plus lose is bad, but not terrible.