I take the silver lining. Smart people getting rich is better than dumb people getting rich. Hopefully some day they'll do something good with that money.
> The problem is that smart people are the ones being employed, not the ones getting rich.
Employed is a key word. Generalize the point beyond Jane Street if you're still having difficulties. Such general understanding will be necessary if you want to work somewhere like Jane Street.
See for example “effective altruism”, which turns out to have been neither, but more of a self-deluded justification for insane greed, coupled with a god complex.
Ridiculous, uninformed comment. There is no question that Effective Altruism has done tremendous good overall by saving many, many lives. I say this as someone who disagrees with important aspects, such as valuing distant lives equally to local ones. They have also been more correct than anyone else about AI, pandemics, etc.
It’s also been used as a self-justification by the likes of Sam Bankman-Fried, who exemplifies the qualities I mentioned above.
It’s clearly a very flexible philosophy that “smart people” can use to justify pretty much whatever, and given the presence of such people as SBF and cronies, certainly doesn’t support the notion that it’s a great thing for “smart people” to get rich, or really that we should expect that to be any more than neutral.
“Smart People” can be scumbags, and some prominent EA folks were, all the while shouting about how good they were.
