I understand many in this world think guilt-by-association is valid, but that doesn’t mean it is. Talking with a felon is not itself a crime (nor a bad thing) and you should generally not ostracize people for who they talk to.
Furthermore, accepting a donation from a felon is not inherently bad. Being paid off to launder their reputation is a bad thing, and insofar as you lend your reputation to them in exchange for money, that’s unethical, but I think it’s clear that it’s not healthy for all felons to be barred from donating to charity/non-profits. The money is not itself tainted, it’s their reputation that must be kept straight.
I think even “launder their reputation” is too cynical. If a bad person does something good, via donation or otherwise, then that’s arguably indeed good. Imagine trying to hinder bad people from doing good deeds with the justification that this would launder their bad reputation. That would assume that a bad person doing something good is actually bad, which is seems false. It is true that doing good things makes them seem less bad, but that’s only because doing good things actually makes you less bad overall. (How much less bad is another question.)
As Eliezer himself notes, Epstein do seem to have personally benefited from improving his image through philanthropy as social cover for his trafficking ring, so in this case in particular (not necessarily in all cases of felons or even sex offenders) taking money from him seems straightforwardly bad.
I mean yes: If you do good things, your image will probably improve. As I said, that part doesn’t seem wrong to me.
Apart from that, I’m not convinced we actually know that he didn’t have genuine altruistic interest in donating money to certain charities. Do we have evidence one way or the other?
Also, just practically speaking, if it was for publicity, it would have been more effective to donate to cancer hospitals or starving orphans in Africa than to a weird and seemingly cult-like organization like SIAI.
Surely if you’re around those parts you should know that billionaire philanthropy is generally ineffective and not focused on effective interventions in global health and development. Epstein was primarily known as a philanthropist focused on academic and nonprofit scientific research, hence the high amount of famous/Ivy League scientists in his social circle. According to Eliezer’s account he didn’t understand SIAI’s beliefs on alignment.
shrug I think sharing the info is good & fine. I think you have some responsibility for the hypotheses you privilege. Having an algorithm where you spam ppl with low-quality moral accusations just because a different social scene is generating them, is kind of attention-wasting.
I understand many in this world think guilt-by-association is valid, but that doesn’t mean it is. Talking with a felon is not itself a crime (nor a bad thing) and you should generally not ostracize people for who they talk to.
Furthermore, accepting a donation from a felon is not inherently bad. Being paid off to launder their reputation is a bad thing, and insofar as you lend your reputation to them in exchange for money, that’s unethical, but I think it’s clear that it’s not healthy for all felons to be barred from donating to charity/non-profits. The money is not itself tainted, it’s their reputation that must be kept straight.
I think even “launder their reputation” is too cynical. If a bad person does something good, via donation or otherwise, then that’s arguably indeed good. Imagine trying to hinder bad people from doing good deeds with the justification that this would launder their bad reputation. That would assume that a bad person doing something good is actually bad, which is seems false. It is true that doing good things makes them seem less bad, but that’s only because doing good things actually makes you less bad overall. (How much less bad is another question.)
As Eliezer himself notes, Epstein do seem to have personally benefited from improving his image through philanthropy as social cover for his trafficking ring, so in this case in particular (not necessarily in all cases of felons or even sex offenders) taking money from him seems straightforwardly bad.
I mean yes: If you do good things, your image will probably improve. As I said, that part doesn’t seem wrong to me.
Apart from that, I’m not convinced we actually know that he didn’t have genuine altruistic interest in donating money to certain charities. Do we have evidence one way or the other?
Also, just practically speaking, if it was for publicity, it would have been more effective to donate to cancer hospitals or starving orphans in Africa than to a weird and seemingly cult-like organization like SIAI.
Surely if you’re around those parts you should know that billionaire philanthropy is generally ineffective and not focused on effective interventions in global health and development. Epstein was primarily known as a philanthropist focused on academic and nonprofit scientific research, hence the high amount of famous/Ivy League scientists in his social circle. According to Eliezer’s account he didn’t understand SIAI’s beliefs on alignment.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Though I don’t think I regret asking questions about a thing that was troubling me in a polite way on the community forum.
shrug I think sharing the info is good & fine. I think you have some responsibility for the hypotheses you privilege. Having an algorithm where you spam ppl with low-quality moral accusations just because a different social scene is generating them, is kind of attention-wasting.