A recent article titled “Against Learning From Dramatic Events” has sparked widespread discussion within the community. The author argues that it is essentially unnecessary to learn from extreme or abnormal events, using examples from FTX and OpenAI to illustrate their point. The article has even garnered a response from one of the co-founders of Ethereum.
The article, titled “Against Learning From Dramatic Events,” has provoked extensive discussion within the community. The author opposes learning lessons or drawing conclusions from dramatic events, suggesting that the lessons derived from extreme or abnormal events may be “inaccurate or inapplicable” to general situations.
Reflections on the FTX and OpenAI Incidents
Firstly, the author uses the case of SBF, the founder of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX, as an example. As a young CEO rising in the field of financial technology, SBF’s actions led to severe criticism of fraudulent behavior. Many people at the time suggested that even without conclusive evidence, everyone should quickly point out his fraudulent behavior. This incident highlighted the importance of supervision and transparency, especially in companies like FTX that do not even have a board of directors.
However, the recent incident of Sam Altman being fired from the OpenAI board has become another focal point, presenting a negative lesson. Accusing top leadership without conclusive evidence can lead to unfair damage to their reputation. Furthermore, this incident also highlighted the potential dangers of a powerful board of directors and the necessity of expressing positions quickly in significant news events.
Ironically, while people are encouraged to react quickly and expose potential misconduct in one event, they are also reminded to act with caution and avoid unnecessary controversies in another event.
Vitalik’s Response: Respecting the Legitimacy of the Public
This article also attracted a response from Vitalik, co-founder of Ethereum, who believes that the main issues in both of these cases are related to the “legitimacy of the public.”
Regarding the SBF case, Vitalik points out that SBF’s mistake lies not only in his fraudulent behavior but also in the “awakening slogans” he used. In Vitalik’s view, these actions demonstrate a disregard for public trust and legitimacy. In this case, Vitalik believes that it is important not only to expose his fraudulent behavior but also for SBF to respect and uphold the public’s trust.
Regarding the behavior of the OpenAI board, Vitalik expresses a similar viewpoint. In this situation, the board made significant decisions suddenly and seemed to believe that they didn’t need to explain themselves to the public. This, in Vitalik’s eyes, is also a neglect of the public’s legitimacy. He believes that regardless of the content of the decision, transparency and accountability to the public are of utmost importance.