Making Sense - Sam Harris - #303 — The Fall of Sam Bankman-Fried

Sam Bankman-Friedrich was one of the most successful crypto-exchange traders in the world, but he was also a fraud, a con artist, a liar, and a fraudster. And now, we know that he was all of these things, but who was he really? And how did he get to where he was, and why did he do it? In this episode of the Making Sense Podcast, I try to figure out who he really was and why he did what he did, and how he got away with it. And I also try to make sense of why he should have been fired from his position as CEO of a cryptocurrency exchange in the first place, even if he was a fraud and a scammer, not a good guy, and that he did it in order to enrich himself and the people he was supposed to be working with, not to do good, and not to make a profit. And that's not a bad thing, but it's also not good at all. a very different picture than Bernie Madoff, and I think we can all agree that this is a much, much better picture of who he was really, and what he really really was. The problem is, I have no idea who he actually is. I don't have any idea, and neither do most people I've ever met him, so I can t even begin to guess who he is really, really, or what he's really all of that really is. I don t have a clue about him but I can tell you that he seems to me that he's not to be a bad guy, at least in any way, and maybe not in the least likely at least not the kind of person I ve ever been except in any kind of way . and that's a very strange person I could be or not even a bad person in a way that I ve had any idea maybe not even good , but like that I have ever had a chance to get to know any -- at least of people ever I have a good sense so - and that s let me know that is a good friend he s a good person, right? this is not ? well, right And ...

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast.

00:00:23.760 This is Sam Harris.

00:00:25.140 Okay, well, I want to say something about the Sam Bankman-Fried fiasco.

00:00:32.620 As many of you know, I spoke to Sam once on the podcast.

00:00:36.300 We also put that conversation on the Waking Up app.

00:00:39.460 We've since removed it from the app because it really no longer belongs there, given what happened.

00:00:45.620 But it's still on the podcast. It's episode 271.

00:00:49.420 So you can find it there if you're interested.

00:00:51.580 I'm not going to give a full account of what Bankman-Fried did to destroy his reputation and his wealth

00:00:59.580 and the wealth of many investors and customers.

00:01:03.140 It seems in record time, many details are still coming in.

00:01:08.720 And this is all being very well covered by the press with schadenfreude and cynicism to spare.

00:01:15.620 And that's a point I will return to.

00:01:17.580 But briefly, Bankman-Fried had made tens of billions of dollars trading cryptocurrency

00:01:25.300 and he had built one of the world's largest crypto exchanges, FTX,

00:01:32.400 along with his own investment entity called Alameda Research.

00:01:36.720 And the connection between FTX and Alameda was always unclear.

00:01:43.140 And this seems to have been, in retrospect,

00:01:45.680 something that investors and the business press should have been more interested in.

00:01:50.440 But my interest in Bankman-Fried was entirely due to his stated commitment to effective altruism.

00:01:56.660 He appeared to be the world's greatest example of what has been called earning to give in the EA community,

00:02:02.580 which is setting out to make a lot of money for the express purpose of giving most or all of it away.

00:02:08.540 And at the time I interviewed him, everything suggested that he was doing this.

00:02:13.340 In any case, what seems to have happened last week is that concerns over the financial health of FTX

00:02:20.020 and its links to Alameda Research triggered essentially a run on the bank.

00:02:26.420 FTX customers tried to withdraw their assets en masse.

00:02:30.320 And this revealed an underlying problem at FTX.

00:02:34.920 Unfortunately, Bankman-Fried appears to have used customer assets

00:02:37.860 that should have been safely stored there to fund risky investments through Alameda

00:02:43.940 in a way that seems objectively shady and unethical.

00:02:47.980 Whether or not it was also illegal, I don't think we know.

00:02:52.220 All this happened outside of U.S. jurisdiction,

00:02:55.060 as a majority of crypto trading, in fact, does.

00:02:58.580 So whatever the legality or illegality,

00:03:02.180 Bankman-Fried seems guilty of enormous financial malfeasance.

00:03:06.800 He appears to have lost something like $16 billion in customer assets.

00:03:12.340 And then there were clearly moments where his public comments

00:03:15.580 about the state of the business amounted to lies.

00:03:19.980 These were lies that seemed calculated to reassure investors and customers

00:03:23.700 that everything was fine when everything was really falling apart.

00:03:27.800 Now, I have no idea when all the shady and unethical and probably illegal behavior started.

00:03:34.420 Was he Bernie Madoff from the beginning?

00:03:37.740 Or did he just panic in a financial emergency?

00:03:41.020 Thinking that he could use customer funds just this one time,

00:03:44.260 and then everything would be okay again.

00:03:46.420 The truth is, I don't even know whether Bernie Madoff was Bernie Madoff from the beginning.

00:03:51.440 I don't know whether he was a legitimate investor who was making his clients a lot of money,

00:03:54.780 and then got underwater, and then went Ponzi in an attempt to get back to dry land,

00:04:00.340 and then found that he never could.

00:04:03.160 That wouldn't be good, obviously.

00:04:05.300 But it's a very different picture than of a man who was an evil liar from the very beginning.

00:04:11.860 Just a pure sociopath who knew that he would be bankrupting vulnerable people every step along the way.

00:04:19.700 Perhaps we know what's true about Madoff.

00:04:22.260 I just haven't read very deeply about his case.

00:04:24.780 But the point is, I have no idea who Sam Bankman-Fried was, or is, really.

00:04:32.840 And this morning, I went back and listened to the interview I did with him.

00:04:36.320 And even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't detect anything about him that strikes me as insincere.

00:04:44.700 I don't have any retrospective, spidey sense that makes that conversation appear suddenly in a new light.

00:04:51.600 Now, maybe I'm just a bad judge of character.

00:04:55.880 That is totally possible.

00:04:58.380 I've had people much closer to me than Sam Bankman-Fried, who I've never met and only spoken to twice, once being on that podcast.

00:05:06.740 I've had people much closer to me, people I've worked with, and people who are actual friends, behave in very strange ways that have totally surprised me.

00:05:17.380 And some of these people have large public platforms, and have done things in recent years that I consider quite harmful.

00:05:24.660 I've commented about some of them, and I've held my tongue about others.

00:05:29.060 And frankly, I'm still uncertain about the ethics here.

00:05:33.760 What sort of loyalty does one owe a friend, or a former friend, when that person is creating great harm out in the world?

00:05:42.380 Especially when you yourself have a public platform from which to comment on that harm, and are even being asked to comment.

00:05:51.500 I mean, is it appropriate to treat them differently than one would treat a stranger who is creating the same sort of harm?

00:05:57.240 I don't know.

00:05:59.900 You can probably guess some of the names here. 0.99

00:06:02.740 But COVID alone has caused several of my friends, and former friends, to say and do some spectacularly stupid things. 0.98

00:06:13.900 And I haven't known what to do about that. 0.93

00:06:16.320 However, my point is that I've been very surprised by much of this behavior.

00:06:20.920 So perhaps I am a bad judge of character.

00:06:22.880 However, in the case of Sam Bankman-Fried, I had no prior exposure to him.

00:06:30.200 That podcast conversation was the first time I ever spoke to him.

00:06:34.680 He was simply someone who had been ripped from the pages of Forbes magazine,

00:06:38.540 and promoted by the most prominent people in the effective altruist community.

00:06:42.240 And I had no reason to suspect that he was doing anything shady behind closed doors.

00:06:47.020 And it appears that many of the executives at FTX didn't know what he was doing.

00:06:52.560 And the venture capitalists, like Sequoia, and Lightspeed, and SoftBank, and Tiger Global, and BlackRock,

00:07:00.600 who gave him $2 billion, clearly didn't know what he was doing.

00:07:06.180 And again, when I listen to my interview with him now,

00:07:08.920 I don't detect anything that should have been a red flag to me.

00:07:13.240 Of course, none of this diminishes the harm that Bankman-Fried has caused.

00:07:19.300 As far as I can tell, the accounting is still pretty murky,

00:07:22.240 so it's not clear where the money actually went.

00:07:24.920 But, as I said, he appears to have lost something like $16 billion of customer funds.

00:07:31.460 That's a lot of money.

00:07:33.220 And it's quite possible that some people who listen to my podcast with him

00:07:36.440 could have been so impressed by him and his story

00:07:39.600 that they invested in or through FTX.

00:07:43.240 I would certainly be unhappy to learn that that had happened.

00:07:46.920 And I would deeply regret any role that my podcast played there.

00:07:51.100 But again, I just listened to the conversation this morning,

00:07:54.920 and I still don't hear anything that should have caused me to worry

00:07:57.660 that Sam Bankman-Fried or FTX was not what they seemed.

00:08:01.140 Now, beyond the immediate financial harm he caused,

00:08:06.220 Bankman-Fried has done great harm to the reputation of effective altruism.

00:08:11.120 The revelation that the biggest donor in the EA universe was not what he seemed

00:08:16.760 has produced bomb bursts of cynicism throughout tech and journalism.

00:08:23.780 All of them quite understandable, but also quite unwarranted.

00:08:28.600 First, let me be clear about my own relationship to effective altruism.

00:08:33.740 I've said this before, but I view EA as very much a work in progress,

00:08:38.980 and I have never been identified with the movement or the community,

00:08:43.400 and I've only interacted with a few people in it,

00:08:46.660 mostly by having them on my podcast.

00:08:49.000 And as I said to Will McCaskill,

00:08:50.920 the movement has always seemed somewhat cultic and too online for me to fully endorse.

00:08:57.080 Some of its precepts seem a little dogmatic to me.

00:09:01.920 What I've taken from effective altruism has really been quite simple

00:09:05.740 and can be distilled to two points.

00:09:09.020 The first is that some ways of helping to reduce suffering

00:09:11.760 are far more effective than others,

00:09:15.320 and we should care about those differences.

00:09:18.100 For instance, it's quite possible

00:09:19.740 that trying to solve a problem by one method

00:09:22.520 will be ten or even a hundred times more effective

00:09:25.600 than trying to solve it by another.

00:09:28.480 And in fact, some ways of trying to solve a problem

00:09:30.420 will only make the problem worse.

00:09:33.300 Now, this is such an obvious point

00:09:35.380 that it seems insane

00:09:37.080 that you would need a movement

00:09:38.560 to get people to understand it.

00:09:40.940 But prior to EA,

00:09:43.820 most philanthropy seemed to be basically blind

00:09:47.360 to any rational metrics of success.

00:09:51.200 In fact, many charities are governed by perverse incentives.

00:09:55.020 They can't afford to solve the problem

00:09:57.280 they're ostensibly committed to solving

00:09:58.880 because then they would go out of business.

00:10:02.000 Effective altruism, at least in principle,

00:10:05.220 represents a clear-eyed view

00:10:06.960 of what it takes to do good in the world

00:10:08.980 and to prioritize the most effective ways

00:10:11.580 of doing that good.

00:10:13.420 The second principle,

00:10:14.980 which more or less follows directly from the first,

00:10:18.020 is that there's a difference

00:10:19.200 between causes that make us feel good,

00:10:22.660 that are sexy and subjectively rewarding to support,

00:10:25.920 and those that reduce suffering and death most effectively.

00:10:30.200 As I've discussed many times on the podcast,

00:10:32.720 we are easily moved by a compelling story,

00:10:36.480 particularly one with a single, sympathetic,

00:10:38.980 protagonist,

00:10:39.940 and we tend not to be moved at all by statistics.

00:10:44.140 So if you tell me that one little girl fell down a well,

00:10:47.480 and I can do something to save her right now,

00:10:50.640 well, I'm going to do more or less whatever it takes,

00:10:53.780 especially if that girl lives just a few blocks away from my home. 1.00

00:10:57.420 But if you tell me that 10,000 little girls 1.00

00:11:00.760 fall down wells every year,

00:11:03.560 and most of them live in Tanzania,

00:11:05.520 I'm not sure what I'm going to do,

00:11:07.060 but it's not going to sweep aside all my other priorities for the day.

00:11:11.640 I might just go get some frozen yogurt in an hour.

00:11:14.860 And if you do convince me to support a charity

00:11:17.160 that is working in Tanzania to save these little girls,

00:11:20.280 however big a check I write,

00:11:22.440 the act of writing it

00:11:23.840 is not going to be as subjectively rewarding

00:11:26.480 as my helping my neighbors save one little girl.

00:11:30.500 It might be 10,000 times more effective,

00:11:33.940 but it will be 10,000 times less rewarding.

00:11:38.340 This is a bug,

00:11:39.460 not a feature of our moral psychology.

00:11:42.520 We are just not built

00:11:43.980 to emotionally respond to data.

00:11:47.740 And yet the data really do indicate

00:11:50.080 the relative magnitude of human suffering.

00:11:53.080 So on this point,

00:11:54.600 effective altruism has convinced me

00:11:56.440 to give in a way that is unsentimental,

00:12:00.780 in that it can be divorced

00:12:01.960 from the good feelings I want to get

00:12:04.180 from supporting causes I'm emotionally connected to.

00:12:07.220 It's caused me to commit in advance

00:12:09.640 to give a certain amount of money away every year.

00:12:12.780 In my case,

00:12:13.460 a minimum of 10% of my pre-tax income.

00:12:16.500 And in the case of waking up,

00:12:17.700 a minimum of 10% of our profits.

00:12:20.100 And to give this money

00:12:20.980 to the most effective charities we can find.

00:12:23.780 As I've said before,

00:12:25.860 I even said this in the intro to the episode

00:12:27.580 with Sam Bankman-Fried,

00:12:29.360 committing in advance

00:12:30.720 to giving a certain percentage away

00:12:32.480 to the most effective charities,

00:12:34.060 and then giving whatever I want

00:12:35.200 to less effective causes,

00:12:36.660 to which I might be more emotionally attached.

00:12:39.580 This has really transformed

00:12:41.500 my ethical life for the better.

00:12:44.220 Because I now experience giving money

00:12:45.840 to a children's hospital,

00:12:47.680 or to some person's GoFundMe page,

00:12:50.280 more or less like a guilty pleasure.

00:12:52.620 It's like I'm splurging on myself.

00:12:56.340 That money could be going

00:12:57.640 to the most effective charities. 0.99

00:12:59.460 But selfish bastard that I am, 0.98

00:13:01.800 I'm just helping a single individual 0.99

00:13:03.620 who may have been the victim

00:13:05.120 of an acid attack in Pakistan.

00:13:07.820 Right?

00:13:09.120 It's hard to capture the psychology of this

00:13:11.200 until you experience it.

00:13:13.160 But it has transformed my thinking

00:13:14.520 about many things.

00:13:16.080 About wealth,

00:13:17.660 and charity,

00:13:18.560 and compassion.

00:13:19.220 And exactly none of this

00:13:23.620 is put in jeopardy

00:13:25.400 by the discovery that Sam Bankman-Fried

00:13:27.680 was guilty of some terrible

00:13:29.580 investment fraud.

00:13:31.620 Again, I'm still not sure

00:13:32.740 what happened with him.

00:13:34.060 Whether he was exactly what he seemed,

00:13:36.280 but then freaked out

00:13:37.280 in the midst of an emergency

00:13:38.280 and started lying and stealing

00:13:39.920 in an attempt to get out of it.

00:13:41.560 Or whether he's a pure con man.

00:13:44.420 But neither of these possibilities

00:13:46.300 has any implication

00:13:48.340 for what I've taken

00:13:49.920 from effective altruism.

00:13:52.040 And the same would be true 0.99

00:13:53.040 if there were unhappy revelations

00:13:54.380 yet to come from other prominent people

00:13:56.060 in the EA community.

00:13:57.720 This would be very depressing,

00:13:59.400 but it would have no effect

00:14:00.920 on how my thinking about ethics

00:14:02.960 has changed for the better.

00:14:05.360 Here's an analogy

00:14:06.260 that might make this a little clearer.

00:14:08.380 Imagine a very prominent scientist

00:14:10.500 or a group of scientists

00:14:12.340 is found to have faked their data.

00:14:15.500 This happens from time to time.

00:14:17.740 Imagine that the scientist in question

00:14:19.200 has been so influential

00:14:21.200 and the fraud was sustained for so long

00:14:24.140 that a Nobel Prize

00:14:25.700 now has to be rescinded

00:14:27.200 and an entire department

00:14:28.840 at Harvard shuttered.

00:14:31.160 Would this say anything

00:14:32.440 about the legitimacy of science itself?

00:14:35.500 Of course not.

00:14:37.140 However, I'm now seeing

00:14:38.540 a lot of people

00:14:39.480 respond to the Bankman-Fried debacle

00:14:42.300 as though it reveals

00:14:44.000 that the very idea

00:14:45.480 of effective altruism

00:14:46.920 was always a sham.

00:14:49.640 It's as if people are concluding

00:14:50.800 that no one is ever sincere

00:14:52.600 in their attempts to help others

00:14:54.360 or that there are no better

00:14:56.100 and worse ways

00:14:56.940 of doing good in the world.

00:14:58.460 Certainly not where charity

00:14:59.520 is concerned.

00:15:00.960 It's all just virtue signaling

00:15:02.300 and reputation laundering

00:15:04.040 and sanctimony

00:15:05.760 and lies.

00:15:07.160 There appear to be

00:15:08.980 many very selfish people

00:15:10.920 who didn't much like

00:15:12.380 hearing about someone

00:15:13.180 giving most or all

00:15:14.280 of his wealth away

00:15:15.060 who now feel

00:15:16.420 totally vindicated

00:15:17.940 in their selfishness.

00:15:20.180 They seem to be thinking

00:15:20.820 all those effective altruists

00:15:22.340 were just pretending

00:15:23.660 to be better than me

00:15:25.160 and they're not.

00:15:26.600 They're actually worse

00:15:27.760 because they can't be honest

00:15:29.820 about their selfishness 0.99

00:15:31.440 and hypocrisy. 0.97

00:15:33.060 Over here in the real world,

00:15:34.500 we're just all in it

00:15:35.540 for ourselves

00:15:36.180 and that's fine

00:15:37.560 because that's all

00:15:38.680 that's possible.

00:15:40.360 Anyway,

00:15:41.280 this is all just morbid

00:15:43.240 and obtuse.

00:15:45.540 Just as you can know

00:15:46.940 that science

00:15:47.560 is a legitimate enterprise

00:15:49.060 because you can actually

00:15:50.660 do science,

00:15:52.440 you can know

00:15:53.380 that effective altruism

00:15:54.960 is legitimate

00:15:55.920 because you can actually

00:15:57.760 do it

00:15:58.360 for the right reasons.

00:16:00.060 As damaging as fraud

00:16:02.600 can be

00:16:03.180 in both domains,

00:16:05.080 no case of fraud

00:16:06.460 can put either domain

00:16:08.780 in question.

00:16:10.540 Fraud has no logical

00:16:11.880 relationship

00:16:12.540 to either enterprise.

00:16:15.360 Scientific frauds

00:16:16.520 are not science.

00:16:18.200 They're frauds

00:16:19.000 and the corrective to them

00:16:20.900 is real science.

00:16:23.500 Ethical frauds 1.00

00:16:24.780 are not ethics.

00:16:26.820 They're frauds.

00:16:27.740 The corrective to them

00:16:29.720 is real ethical behavior.

00:16:32.780 The other crazy thing

00:16:34.020 I'm seeing

00:16:34.480 is that people

00:16:35.240 are linking

00:16:35.780 Bankman-Fried's behavior

00:16:37.180 to the ethical philosophy

00:16:38.720 of utilitarianism

00:16:40.680 as though a belief

00:16:42.300 in this philosophy

00:16:43.120 was bound

00:16:44.280 to produce

00:16:45.400 such behavior.

00:16:46.880 And everything

00:16:47.600 I've heard said

00:16:48.620 or seen written

00:16:49.640 about this

00:16:50.280 is pretty confused.

00:16:52.680 I'm sure I'll talk

00:16:53.320 more about this

00:16:53.980 on future podcasts

00:16:55.320 because it's important

00:16:56.600 to get straight.

00:16:57.740 But the short point

00:16:58.780 I'll make here

00:16:59.520 is that

00:16:59.940 in my view

00:17:00.900 the claim

00:17:01.540 that utilitarianism

00:17:02.800 or more properly

00:17:04.080 consequentialism

00:17:05.260 is bad

00:17:06.560 amounts to a claim

00:17:07.960 that it has bad

00:17:08.660 consequences

00:17:09.360 of some sort.

00:17:11.200 But of course

00:17:11.680 if these consequences

00:17:12.620 are worth

00:17:13.300 caring about

00:17:14.120 they can be included

00:17:15.660 in any fuller picture

00:17:17.020 of consequentialism.

00:17:18.900 My point

00:17:19.720 and I made this

00:17:20.320 at length

00:17:21.140 in my book

00:17:21.720 The Moral Landscape

00:17:22.740 which remains

00:17:23.560 the most misunderstood

00:17:24.720 book I've ever written.

00:17:26.040 my point

00:17:27.140 is that

00:17:27.500 everyone really

00:17:28.520 is some form

00:17:29.640 of consequentialist

00:17:31.060 even if they think

00:17:32.060 they're not.

00:17:33.100 You just have to

00:17:33.780 listen to them

00:17:34.420 talk long enough

00:17:35.560 and they start

00:17:36.480 telling you

00:17:36.860 about the consequences

00:17:37.740 they really care about.

00:17:39.840 Deontology

00:17:40.440 for instance

00:17:41.180 a version like

00:17:42.280 Kant's 0.93

00:17:42.780 categorical imperative

00:17:43.840 or virtue ethics

00:17:45.840 right

00:17:46.180 I think these

00:17:46.800 positions

00:17:47.540 entail

00:17:48.820 covert claims

00:17:50.080 about the consequences

00:17:51.520 of certain ways

00:17:52.900 of thinking

00:17:53.400 or acting

00:17:54.420 or being

00:17:55.420 in the world.

00:17:57.120 Anyway I'll speak

00:17:57.720 more about that

00:17:58.400 at some point

00:17:59.020 but suffice it to say

00:18:01.180 that if Sam Bankman

00:18:02.700 Freed

00:18:03.240 stole his

00:18:04.400 customers money

00:18:05.160 and gambled it away

00:18:06.860 whatever rationale

00:18:08.160 he may have had

00:18:08.740 in his head

00:18:09.300 it would have been

00:18:10.340 very easy to argue

00:18:11.800 that this was wrong

00:18:13.340 from the point of view

00:18:14.980 of consequentialism.

00:18:16.620 Just look at the

00:18:17.660 consequences

00:18:18.260 they're disastrous

00:18:20.120 they're disastrous

00:18:21.740 for him

00:18:22.380 and for his

00:18:23.840 investors

00:18:24.340 and customers

00:18:25.720 and for anyone

00:18:27.300 in his life

00:18:28.140 who cares about him.

00:18:30.400 I mean

00:18:30.600 just think about

00:18:31.820 the consequences

00:18:32.680 for his parents.

00:18:35.300 His parents are both

00:18:36.260 Stanford law professors

00:18:37.580 now assuming that

00:18:39.160 neither had any idea

00:18:40.240 what he was up to

00:18:41.020 and so they're not

00:18:41.920 at all culpable

00:18:42.660 for what happened

00:18:43.560 and who knows

00:18:44.720 they might actually

00:18:45.600 have been involved

00:18:46.520 I know nothing

00:18:47.280 about them

00:18:47.740 but I suspect not

00:18:49.420 imagine

00:18:50.840 how their lives

00:18:52.300 changed

00:18:52.780 last week

00:18:53.740 they have spent

00:18:55.060 the last decade

00:18:55.960 being congratulated

00:18:57.500 I suspect

00:18:58.700 endlessly

00:18:59.480 for having produced

00:19:01.180 such a marvelous

00:19:02.740 and marvelously

00:19:04.000 successful

00:19:04.840 son

00:19:05.560 can you imagine

00:19:07.420 he got a degree

00:19:08.940 in physics

00:19:09.560 from MIT

00:19:10.280 and then went on

00:19:11.720 to make

00:19:12.120 30 billion dollars

00:19:13.760 for the purpose

00:19:14.840 of giving it

00:19:15.600 all away

00:19:16.260 to charity

00:19:16.880 and then expanded

00:19:18.480 his influence

00:19:19.340 into politics

00:19:20.320 and among celebrities

00:19:21.680 so that he could

00:19:22.900 do even more good

00:19:24.060 ultimately

00:19:24.800 he's hanging

00:19:26.040 with Bill Clinton

00:19:26.920 and Tony Blair

00:19:27.920 and Tom Brady

00:19:28.900 and Giselle

00:19:29.600 but rather than 0.99

00:19:30.980 being just a star fucker 0.99

00:19:32.320 or an ordinary rich guy 1.00

00:19:34.000 he is laser focused

00:19:35.760 on making money

00:19:36.640 to solve the world's

00:19:37.740 most pressing problems

00:19:39.020 can you imagine

00:19:41.100 how proud

00:19:42.660 his parents were

00:19:43.520 and now their son

00:19:45.420 is the next

00:19:46.020 Elizabeth Holmes

00:19:46.900 or worse

00:19:48.340 I mean you just have

00:19:49.760 to consider the lives

00:19:50.760 of these two people 1.00

00:19:51.940 and this is a fucking 1.00

00:19:53.580 Greek tragedy 1.00

00:19:54.580 but of course

00:19:56.440 the harm has spread

00:19:57.620 much further

00:19:58.680 than that

00:19:59.460 anyway

00:20:01.040 those are my thoughts

00:20:01.960 at the moment

00:20:02.680 I will definitely

00:20:04.140 speak more about

00:20:04.800 these issues

00:20:05.320 on future podcasts

00:20:06.460 and I'd be happy

00:20:08.260 to hear suggestions

00:20:08.960 for anyone

00:20:09.560 who I might speak with

00:20:10.500 who could take the conversation

00:20:11.960 in new directions

00:20:13.000 thanks for listening

Making Sense - Sam Harris - November 15, 2022

#303 — The Fall of Sam Bankman-Fried

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript