this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1011 readers
1 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
81
SBF's effective altruism and rationalism considered an aggravating circumstance in sentencing (www.citationneeded.news)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Architeuthis@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For thursday's sentencing the us government indicated they would be happy with a 40-50 prison sentence, and in the list of reasons they cite there's this gem:

  1. Bankman-Fried's effective altruism and own statements about risk suggest he would be likely to commit another fraud if he determined it had high enough "expected value". They point to Caroline Ellison's testimony in which she said that Bankman-Fried had expressed to her that he would "be happy to flip a coin, if it came up tails and the world was destroyed, as long as if it came up heads the world would be like more than twice as good". They also point to Bankman-Fried's "own 'calculations'" described in his sentencing memo, in which he says his life now has negative expected value. "Such a calculus will inevitably lead him to trying again," they write.

Turns out making it a point of pride that you have the morality of an anime villain does not endear you to prosecutors, who knew.

Bonus: SBF's lawyers' list of assertions for asking for a shorter sentence includes this hilarious bit reasoning:

They argue that Bankman-Fried would not reoffend, for reasons including that "he would sooner suffer than bring disrepute to any philanthropic movement."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] pikesley@mastodon.me.uk 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

@Architeuthis

"Almost all of the letters lamented the likelihood that victims will not be able to enjoy the gains on their crypto assets, as the bankruptcy proceedings are likely to pay out claims in dollars based on the price of Bitcoin and other assets on the date of bankruptcy ($16,871, in Bitcoin's case) rather than their prices today (around $70,000, or over four times as much)" oh no what a shame

[โ€“] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 9 months ago

Your honor, My client caused no damages.

As clearly seen in the impact statements the only thing that was lost was crypto currencies and as they state they would have been held on to if not lost. By holding on to the crypto currencies, the victims shows a common delusion in the crypto sphere, namely that crypto has value. In all certainty they would have held on until said crypto was lost, stolen or had collapsed. The true expected value was zero.