Possibly because the future of humanity itself is in question?
"We're not going to make it, are we? Humans, I mean." --John Connor
"We're not going to make it, are we? Humans, I mean." --John Connor
Initially wrote wrong surname.
I mean, some of their ideas are way out there, and obviously if not tempered can lead to bad consequences (e.g. SBF/FTX). But a hack?
One of the things criminals do to hide their activity, assuage their guilt, or put on a good show is associate with legitimate organizations. Social organizations typically don't and probably shouldn't do intrusive investigations into the lives and activities of their members sufficient to uncover their crimes.
When such organizations learn of any benefits accrued through the illegal activities of members, there are obviously moral and sometimes legal requirements to disassociate, disavow, and return ill-gotten funds.
Tegmark and Bostrom should be no means be tainted by association with EA. Their ideas and work on AI alignment and safety are excellent, and they ask the questions that should be answered as AI starts to reach human levels of competence and beyond.
Not so silly that the EA community didn’t talk about what went wrong.
The reality is SBF was a con man, and however complex his motivations and personality and psychological issues, whatever his ultimate intent, he willfully scammed a lot of money from a lot of people. EA might have been an influence, but SBF is a human with complex agency whose actions can't and shouldn't be reduced to membership or association with a community.
Going from "here's a set of good ideas about how to effectively give to charity, since we see a lot of corruption and inefficiency in charities" to "we have a moral duty to ensure that we only associate with good people" is how you go from a good idea to a pompous internet cult.
Could you point to some?
How so? I would like to hear your argument.