I upvoted this only because I feel like Garry Tan has been increasingly unhinged, or just removing the mask. To me this looks a lot like deflection and bullying, and not based in reality.
For example:
> Compare that to Warren Buffett, who leads the lifetime giving list at $68.3 billion. He built decades-long relationships with the Gates Foundation and his family charities. He understands what they do. He watches outcomes. Scott’s approach is the opposite — spray and pray at a scale nobody has ever attempted.
Really? Have Gates and Buffett been successful? I would say no. For all this talk about measurement and goals that Garry pushed, he’s ignorant of the fact that most of the Gates Foundation spending has little impact. Giving money away directly to those in need would be very effective but billionaires won’t do that.
Then there’s this …
> The pattern is clear: massive windfalls without oversight corrupt institutions.
The irony here is that Garry can’t see how he and his network of rich friends thrive off grift and lack of oversight at scale, as they pursue government contracts from an administration that is itself adding trillions to the national debt without oversight. But no, let’s instead talk about the minuscule spending from McKenzie Scott instead, and how SHE should have more oversight of her own money.
So if I'm understanding correctly, Garry Tan copy-pasta'd AI slop he had an LLM write for him.
It calls MacKenzie Scott (née Bezos) divorce settlement a "sugar pile."
And it's clear the LLM was prompted to argue for a reason giving away money was actually bad...she gave it away too fast! because some college gave the president's son a job. and enrollment went down.
Could not care less what Garry Tan's opinion of MacKenzie Scott’s charity work is.
Even if every penny she gave away did zero good and was just to spite Bezos, I'd still respect her far more than any of the tech oligarchs who are actively making the world worse just to see their own personal net wealth number go up.
For example:
> Compare that to Warren Buffett, who leads the lifetime giving list at $68.3 billion. He built decades-long relationships with the Gates Foundation and his family charities. He understands what they do. He watches outcomes. Scott’s approach is the opposite — spray and pray at a scale nobody has ever attempted.
Really? Have Gates and Buffett been successful? I would say no. For all this talk about measurement and goals that Garry pushed, he’s ignorant of the fact that most of the Gates Foundation spending has little impact. Giving money away directly to those in need would be very effective but billionaires won’t do that.
Then there’s this …
> The pattern is clear: massive windfalls without oversight corrupt institutions.
The irony here is that Garry can’t see how he and his network of rich friends thrive off grift and lack of oversight at scale, as they pursue government contracts from an administration that is itself adding trillions to the national debt without oversight. But no, let’s instead talk about the minuscule spending from McKenzie Scott instead, and how SHE should have more oversight of her own money.