Lightcone is so outraged at the Guardian article that they have started a prediction market about it

Dang that slanderous Guardian describing Manifund as a prediction market when it's a market where people make predictions. Totally misleading!

Since Ivan owns 50% of the project's certs, his stake has tripled in value from $3,000 to $9,000; he sells them for $9,000 to The Good Foundation, netting a $6,000 profit. (Important note: for legal reasons, profits on Manifund impact certificates can currently only be used to donate to charity and can't be cashed out in the normal way.)

Is the header image on that page an intentional joke at the expense of GenAI, or did someone seriously make that and add it to the page? Do they autogenerate their pics?

Well, they got their wish, the Guardian piece is now updated:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/16/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-eugenics-scientific-racism

This article was amended on 17 June 2024 to include a comment from Oliver Habryka about the purchase of Lighthaven that was received after publication; in responding, Habryka disclosed an escrow document for the property’s purchase showing a $1m deposit from, and refunded to, North Dimension Inc, a subsidiary of FTX’s sister company Alameda, which he said meant “the relevant funds never entered our bank account”. An earlier version mistakenly said Lightcone, rather than CFAR, was the sole member of Lightcone Rose Garden, and that Habryka was the latter’s registered agent, when another individual is listed in that role. A reference to Manifund as a “prediction market” has also been corrected.

I think the Gruaniad had a lot of fun with this. By hyperfocusing on the nitpicks, the rats gave them an open goal in correcting tiny details (who now cares whether any money from SBF actually entered the account of Lightcone?) but left the bigger details in place: namely that Lightcone is tight with racists.

Edit a few libertarians(?) in the comments are urging Habryka to sue for libel in the UK, totally fine with using the power of the state to enforce speech! He modestly declines, likely he knows it's not a slam-dunk win (especially if the newspaper actually amends the piece) and that news orgs live for being sued for defamation. It's the classic sign of a bully to sue, and it generates a ton of press.

Imagine being such losers that you get owned by the fucking Guardian, and as your brilliant followup, you start screaming "I'M NOT OWNED"

is it considered acceptable journalistic ethics at Vox for a journalist who reports on EAs and prediction markets to make prediction market bets on how a journalistic outlet will follow-up a story on prediction markets and EAs? My eyebrows have just levitated so high they've collided with a starlink swarm.

The good news is that eugenics chuds are really easy to simulate.

lesswrong response

first comment:

The response from Habryka points out several factual inaccuracies, but I don't see anything that directly refutes the core issue the article brings up. I recognize that engaging with the substance of the allegations might be awkward and difficult, not constituting "winning" in the rationalist sense.

dutifully downvoted to -6 of course