People are a lot like ChatGPT, in that they fill in their next action based on what is most likely according to their training given what actions came before it.

I really like this model of human behavior and I subscribe to it myself. It's how I explain why some people become pathological liars - because it worked well in the past.

I agree. I have never held to anything special about the way I or my brain function. I appear to be pattern-matching my way through the day 99% of the time — and forgetting 99% of it as well, only noting the perceived anomalies.

It's what happens when smart, privileged people abuse uppers. Rather than break into a truck to steal tools they just go on white collar crime sprees.

A lot of these millenial/Gen-Z types are diagnosed with ADHD and are 100% abusing Dextroamphetamine.

I really hope Caroline and Gary go to prison too.

It would be a slap in the face if they got some absurd plea deal where they didn't have to go to jail if they testified against Sam.

Since both are talking, I assume their deal isn't that great. My understanding is that you only get those out-of-jail-free cards if there's no other way to convict and I don't see that being the case here in any way.

On the other hand, great lawyers and connections might still make something out of it.

> On the other hand, great lawyers and connections might still make something out of it.

That's my concern. Caroline's father is an MIT professor who was previously Gary Gensler's (head of SEC) boss.

It would be extremely disheartening if Caroline gets an extremely generous plea deal due to her father's connections.

What is up with the conspiracy theories that professors are somehow politically powerful entities? Is everyone putting forth these theories still in college? Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia.

Personal connections to the head of the SEC on the other hand are valuable.

Honestly, I would imagine SBF's parents being partners at a major firm would be a better indicator than law school professors.

> Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia

Are you joking?

That's absolutely not the case for Economics (the context we're talking about here).

Why don't you look up the backgrounds of the people on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors?

Or, look up who drafts major legislation? If you watch MIT's Econ 101 course on YouTube, the professor who teaches it was actually the guy behind Obamacare (John Gruber).

Modern Monetary Policy has become a huge part of a base of the Democratic Party, again... drafted by an Economics Professor.

> Is everyone putting forth these theories still in college? Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia.

No. I'm not still in college.

You just seem to be completely unaware on how influential Economists (almost all of whom are college professors) are.

> Personal connections to the head of the SEC on the other hand are valuable

Oh yeah, head of the SEC is also an MIT Econ Professor.

But... clearly they have no power outside academia!!

Saying otherwise is a conspiracy theory!!

I looked up the backgrounds of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And? A few were professors for a few years and maybe one made it a major job.

The former head of the SEC was also a partner at Goldman Sachs, where he co-chaired their Finance committee overseeing their internal controls, spent 4 years in an undersecretary position in the treasury department, joined the Senate staff and helped write Sarbanes-Oxley, is former chair of the US CTFC where he overhauled regulations for 6 years.

By my count, that's 12 years of high-level federal government experience, 18 years at Goldman Sachs, and maybe 6 years as a professor. And the professorship was after at least 24 years doing other things at a very high level

You seem to confuse cause and effect

He also forgets that a large part of the federal reserve is, essentially, a research institution. That does research, publishes and critiques papers, and then takes those papers into account when drafting policy.

The question was around whether Economics professors are influential outside of academia.

The answer is unequivocally yes.

You seem to have changed the discussion to something else.

The question is around Economics Professors and their effects on society and how well-connected they tend to be. Many Econ professors at business schools are former bankers. Many bankers are former Econ profs (banks have a ton of staff in research roles).

You’ve changed the argument to… i don’t even know?

The question is whether Economics Professors are influential outside of academia and if they’re well connected. The answer is obviously yes. The top professors (i.e. MIT Profs, Harvard Profs, Yale, etc.) are extremely influential far beyond academia.

It’s anazing how ignorant HN is outside of the narrow circle of programming.

Some business school professors are accomplished former businessmen. Some are just lifelong academics. The ones with power are because of their non-professor credentials and connections.

Schools, business schools especially, like to hire influential people as professors. So there are many powerful professors. But that's not why they are powerful.

Since that's not why they are powerful, there's no reason to bring it up.

Again, wrong.

Reread the thread to see why.

Tangent but, why are we referring to them by their first names? I see this in lots of threads. I understand each people call Elon Musk just Elon - there's no other Elon we're talking about, and he's been a public figure for a long time. I understand that SBF has been SBF for a long time, even if I hadn't paid attention to him until recently. But surely there's a lot of Garys in crypto.

Well, this is the comment section of a HN topic that's specifically about Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang (their names are included in the title).

If this were some random other thread, then yeah sure it would be confusing to just say Gary or Caroline.

I guess my question is, why the familiarity? Why not Ellison and Wang? The confusion stuff I shouldn't have included, it was extraneous. I'm just puzzled why we're speaking of them as if they were friends or treasured celebrities.

I don't mean that as a criticism either, I just feel like I missed a beat culturally.

Normally we would know their middle names as well

My guess is that it's subconsciously patronizing behavior. Ellison and Wang are both young (around 28/29 I think) and they are no longer respectable after their spectacular failure. People feel entitled to call them whatever they want and their first names are much easier to remember than their last names.

it's exactly because they're so privileged. If you ever see posh people being arrested for incredibly stupid white collar crime it's usually because they live on the assumption that nothing is ever so serious that someone can't bail you out of.

maybe a blood cult did their thinking for them

given some of her tweets and blog posts it seems chronic stimulant abuse is what did their thinking for them.

For those of you who can't hear it, this is an antisemitic dog whistle, the implication being that because SBF is Jewish and FTX was a financial institution, that were taking orders from a secret cabal performing rituals involving blood. This is QAnon/Blood Libel nonsense.

They almost certainly did not think anything they were doing was wrong. Effective altruism and utilitarianism is one helluva drug

Sorry but no. They absolutely know what they were doing was wrong. They just felt right about it. Don't make excuses for white collar criminals.

Lol... I'm not making excuses. If you read my post history, you'll note I've been a constant critic of crypto and the accompanying scams. i'm just pointing out that the people who commit some of the worst crimes often convince themselves they are doing great good. Most of us believe that we would never do bad things. However, most of us are quite capable of it because we justify our actions to ourselves, and it's very easy to do bad while believing yourself good, which is what happened here.

100% this. the most dangerous situation is when people convince themselves that their goal is objectively good and thus adopt a Machiavellian attitude that the ends justify the means. i imagine the thought process goes something like "it doesn't matter how we obtain all these money, as long as we ultimately use the money to do good. the good outweighs the bad, and as long as we get away with it, people will eventually forget the bad with time."

even worse is when the people who have this attitude are extremely ignorant but truly and genuinely believe they have good intentions. they will proceed to do extremely damaging things to other people, causing extreme harm, all because they truly believe their intentions are good, but often their viewpoint is wrong due to incomplete information. these people almost see themselves as heroes and are empowered by their moral conviction from that viewpoint. i've observed this first-hand too many times in my personal life.

Until you see them buying massive mansions and hiding their money away and even that is a lie too. If you could show me one truly charitable thing they've actually done, rather than ego reinforcing projections, I'm listening.

Sure, they're justifying their means, but none of it has any actual good intentions.

also drugs are a helluva drug

Amphetamine, it’s the powerhouse of the (grifting) cell

Ellison's tweets about adderall are something else. I saw those and was like "People trust her with billions?"

The problem isnt the adderall. Its that she was clearly abusing it. She participated in the theft of billions and she felt great doing it.