Yudkowsky advises his fellow Effective Altruists to take the FTX money and run. For the sake of charity, you understand.

It's fine to call it your charity and your contribution that you undercharge for those utilons and don't capture as much value as you create - if you're nice enough to do that, which you don't have to be, you can be Lawful Neutral instead of Lawful Good and I won't think you're as cool but I'll still happily trade with you.

(I apologize for resorting to the D&D alignment chart, at this point, but I really am not sure how to compactly express these ideas without those concepts, or concepts that I could define more elaborately that would mean the same thing.)

how have awful nerd writers like Yud not realized that D&D alignments are barely serviceable as a storytelling mechanism, much less an ethical framework? I keep seeing the alignment chart seriously mentioned as if it were an irrefutable aspect of human nature, but it was written as a gameplay mechanic (for spells/prayers that care if the caster or target is good or evil) and falls apart under the lightest scrutiny, as a lot of DMs and D&D writers have noticed. why is this still a thought-terminating cliche in nerd culture circles?

I love to sell utilons on the market.