SBF Prison Interview Update: Discussing Prison Life, Diddy, and How the Democratic Party Betrayed Him

Original Interview: Tucker Carlson, American political commentator;
Guest: Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX Founder;
Original Text Translation: DeepSeek

Editor's Note: In this interview, SBF discussed with Tucker Carlson his life in prison, interaction with Diddy, betrayal by the Democratic Party, the future of cryptocurrency, and his reflection on effective altruism. SBF described the monotony and challenges of prison life, reflected on the reasons for the FTX crash, and criticized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) regulation of the cryptocurrency industry. While he still believes in the principles of effective altruism, he acknowledged that helping others requires a deeper understanding. The interview also touched on SBF's uncertainty about the future and his struggles with the law and relationships.

The following is the original content (reorganized for better readability):

What Is Prison Life Like?

Tucker Carlson: Where are you right now?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I'm at the NDC in Brooklyn, in a small room.

Tucker Carlson: How is it there? How long have you been there?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I've been in prison for about two years now.

Tucker Carlson: What has the experience been like?

Sam Bankman-Fried: It's somewhat dystopian, you could say. Luckily, where I am, there's no physical danger. And honestly, many of the staff here are really trying to help; they're doing what they can under the current constraints. But ultimately, no one wants to be in prison. You can imagine, putting 40 people in a room, all at least accused of a crime, and locking them away for years on end, throwing away the key. In that situation, even the smallest, most mundane things become their sole concern.

Tucker Carlson: I see. Have you encountered any issues?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Nothing particularly serious, like being attacked. But I've had a lot of logistical issues, the most serious of which is that during my trial, I could hardly access legal materials. Typically, the process on trial days is that they wake me up at 4 a.m., and then I spend five hours shuttling around in various buses, vans, and holding rooms until the morning trial begins. It goes on until 5 p.m., then another four hours of holding and transport, getting back to the cell by 9 p.m., well past the time I could have reviewed legal papers. That has been the biggest hurdle for my case.

Tucker Carlson: So what do you usually do when you're not in court?

Sam Bankman-Fried: There's not much to do in prison. I read, started reading novels again, occasionally play chess, and try to prepare as much as possible for my legal case. I have appeals and other legal matters, and I try to do everything I can. But the most frustrating part of being in prison is the lack of meaningful things to do.

Tucker Carlson: Honestly, we haven't talked before, but I've been following you. I also want to say that no matter what someone is accused of or has done, I feel sorry for all people in prison, I don't think people should be locked up.

Tucker Carlson: Of course, I know the law requires it, but I really feel sorry for everyone in jail. You can call me a "liberal," but I have to say that after two years of prison, you actually look healthier and less tense than before.

Sam Bankman-Fried: You know, I had a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate with people. Looking back, I think I didn't do a good job in communication, especially when the crisis first broke out and in the following month. I made a mistake I often make—I got lost in the details and forgot to see the bigger picture.

Was SBF Taking Medication Before Going to Jail?

Tucker Carlson: Every time I saw you on TV, you seemed as excited as if you were on Adderall. But now you don't seem like that, did you really not take any back then?

Sam Bankman-Fried: No, I didn't. My thinking was almost stagnant because there were too many things to handle. Normally, during that time at FTX, I would be doing an interview, but at the same time, there might be two urgent issues in the company that needed solving. So I would be answering messages on Slack while doing the interview. Also, I knew there were other things to do after the interview, and I hadn't prepared yet, so in my mind, I was trying to plan ahead.

Tucker Carlson: So the digital world may not be good for us? What do you think? You're now forced to be away from your phone, that should be a significant feeling, right?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Indeed, but if you ask me to choose, I still prefer the digital world. Ultimately, for me, it's not about enjoyment, entertainment, or leisure, but about productivity and the ability to make an impact in the world. From this perspective, if there were no digital world, trying to accomplish anything would be exceptionally difficult.

SBF Meets Diddy in Prison

Tucker Carlson: So did you make friends in there? How was your time with Diddy? I heard he was in there too.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, he was indeed. But... I don't know how to put it. He was quite friendly to me. I also made some friends. The environment here is strange, with several high-profile individuals like me, as well as many young people, or some former gang members and the like.

Tucker Carlson: Indeed, "former" gang members. So, how was Diddy himself?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I only saw one side of him, the real-world Diddy. He was friendly to the people here, including me. But this is a place nobody wants to be in, clearly not him, and definitely not me. As he said, this is a soul-crushing place for anyone. And what we have access to here is just these people around us who are in the same situation, not the outside world.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. And you two are arguably the most well-known prisoners in the world, locked up in the same facility. How do others, like those armed robbers, view you both?

Sam Bankman-Fried: That's an interesting question. Of course, some people might see it as an opportunity to meet individuals from different circles, as they would never have the chance to encounter us otherwise. From their perspective, this idea actually makes sense, although it's not at all how I see it.

Tucker Carlson: So you don't see it that way, do you?

Sam Bankman-Fried: No, but sometimes, laughter may be the only thing you can do. You know? These people are exceptionally good at chess, that's one thing I've learned here. For example, those former armed robbers, many of them don't speak English, may not even have graduated from middle school, but they are quite skilled at chess. Of course, I'm not saying they are chess grandmasters, but their level is way beyond my expectations, I often lose to them, which I never anticipated.

SBF's Perspective Shift After Prison

Tucker Carlson: Have these experiences changed your perspective?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think this is just part of a broader understanding. One of the most profound things I've learned in my life, and something I still don't fully grasp, is — our so-called intelligence, IQ, of course, is important, hard work is important too, but beyond that, there are some things we can't quite define. To this day, I have not found the right words to describe it. But some people, with these indescribable qualities, exhibit extraordinary abilities, exceeding everyone's expectations.

Of course, not everyone possesses these qualities, and everyone's situation is different. But at FTX, we often come across such situations—where some people, based on their resumes, seem to have few highlights, lack relevant experience, but end up surpassing most people in the company. They have resilience, intuition, a strong sense of commitment, they know how to work, how to collaborate with others, how to quickly find solutions to problems. These things often are more important than just IQ or experience.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I've seen a lot of people make big money in the financial field who look particularly dumb, but obviously they have some kind of talent that I can't understand. They are the kind of people in my eyes.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Hmm? I'm curious about what kind of people you are referring to. I used to work on Wall Street, and there were indeed all kinds of people there.

Despite SBF's significant donations, the Democratic Party still refuses to bail him out

Tucker Carlson: I don't want to delve too much into the specifics of your case, but overall, your company seemed to have tried to build political relationships through political donations. This is not unusual; many entrepreneurs do this, and it can even be said to be an industry norm. But you donated so much money to the Democratic Party, I thought they would eventually bail you out. What about your Democratic Party friends? They usually keep their people out of jail, like Tony Podesta, who is fine. Why did you end up inside?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Obviously, I can only speculate on the answer because I cannot know their true thoughts. But one fact may be worth noting—even in 2020, my position was leaning towards the center-left, and I donated to Biden's campaign team. At that time, I optimistically believed he would be a stable center-left president. In the following years, I often went to Washington, where I stayed for a long time and had dozens of visits. But I was shocked by what I saw, and the direction of this administration was not ideal. By the middle to late 2022, I had already started privately donating to the Republican Party, with an amount similar to what I gave to the Democratic Party. Moreover, around the time of the FTX collapse, this fact began to be known.

Tucker Carlson: Why were you shocked? I know you spent a long time in Washington and had contact with many politicians. What shocked you?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Some things were more extreme than I was originally concerned about, such as cryptocurrency regulation. I never thought the Democratic Party as a whole would perform well in financial regulation, but there are some good people in both parties, as well as many thoughtful policy makers.

But the presence of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under the leadership of Gary Gensler is a nightmare. For example, if a company wants to offer a certain product or service in the United States, the SEC will directly sue them for not being registered. However, if the company goes to Gensler, expresses willingness to register, and asks about the registration category, the SEC's usual response is—"there is no suitable registration category for you," or there is simply no solution at all.

They demand that companies obtain certain licenses, but they themselves do not know how to issue these licenses. Essentially, the entire cryptocurrency industry is stuck in this situation. This is a very alarming phenomenon that I have observed.

Tucker Carlson: Can you explain further? Even an outsider like me can see that Gary Gensler is clearly corrupt, which everyone knows. But what are his motives? What does he really want?

Sam Bankman-Fried: While I cannot get into his mind, I can share some impressions. He enjoys having control, and of course, many people enjoy having power, and he is no exception. To some extent, this is a power struggle. He wants his agency to have more power, even if he does not have a real plan to advance the industry but only wants to prevent the entire industry from moving forward. For example, he demands that all crypto companies register with him, but if these companies do not approach him, he will lose power. Even though he does not know how to regulate these companies, he still wants them under his jurisdiction.

About him (Gary Gensler), there are many rumors that he is very politically ambitious and feels that if he gets enough exposure on media like MSNBC, expresses enough views, and shapes his image, maybe one day he could become an important figure like Treasury Secretary. He successfully became one of the representatives in the Democratic Party in the financial regulatory field, which is not common.

Tucker Carlson: Interesting, that sounds very much like Washington's style, I have seen similar situations before.

Sam Bankman-Fried: This is not based on moral considerations, nor is it because he has deep-rooted beliefs in communism or the like, right?

Tucker Carlson: Right, I also know it is not like that. His drive seems to be more about personal interest rather than some firm belief. So, when things start to deteriorate, and you are facing criminal charges, or you realize that you might be facing criminal charges, after donating so much money to the Democratic Party, have you contacted Chuck Schumer or other politicians you have supported, asking them to pressure the Biden administration's Department of Justice to help you out?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I did not, for multiple reasons. First, I did not want to do anything inappropriate. Second, many people quickly made their positions clear and distanced themselves from me. By that point, my relationship with the Republican Party in Washington may have been better than with the Democratic Party, even though this was not obvious from the outside.

Sam Bankman-Fried: There is actually a more complex story behind this, involving a law firm that played an unusual role in the case. But before I gave up control of FTX or even before the company filed for bankruptcy, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made up its mind to come after me.

Tucker Carlson: So you did not try to pull strings or seek help? Interesting. So, how do you see the future of cryptocurrency? Obviously, due to your experience, your feelings on this topic may be quite complex, as you once ran a cryptocurrency company but are now imprisoned because of it. However, you have a deep understanding of this industry, and the cryptocurrency space is evolving rapidly. What do you think its future holds? I know this question may seem strange to you, but I can't help but ask.

The Future of Cryptocurrency Under Trump's Leadership

Sam Bankman-Fried: Well, I hope the future will be better. If you look at what was said when the Trump administration took office, many things were positive. There were many differences compared to the current administration, especially in the direction taken by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Obviously, the actual enforcement is the most important thing, and we are currently in that phase — we will see how the future unfolds. It is not surprising, the change in government sometimes brings about changes, but financial regulatory agencies are quite large and not the kind of entities that can change instantly. Over the past decade, they have been a significant hindrance in the cryptocurrency space. You see, the U.S. holds 30% of the global financial market share, but only about 5% in the cryptocurrency market, which is entirely a regulatory issue. The U.S. is particularly challenging to work with in this regard.

Sam Bankman-Fried: So the big question is, when a real challenge arises, will the current government make the necessary decisions and find the right way to enforce them?

Tucker Carlson: I remember when cryptocurrency first emerged into the public eye, the view was that it was a currency that could restore individual commercial freedom. In other words, I could buy and sell things without government control and ensure privacy. But obviously, this scenario has never happened and it seems like it never will. Now, cryptocurrency seems to be just another asset scam. What happened to privacy? How did all this change?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Actually, this is also related to technology, such as payment methods like remittances—these are not just investment issues; many people once believed that cryptocurrency could bring about change in the world. You see, the progress of these things is usually slower than the speed of investment. In fact, the rise of social media is similar; you will see bubbles continuously grow and burst, with rapid changes, while technological development is based on a longer-term foundation.

Currently, cryptocurrency has not yet developed to a stage where it can be a tool used daily by a quarter of the global population. The goal has not been reached, but it is not far off either. If—this is an assumption—the industry continues to progress rather than being overly distracted by market price fluctuations, then in five to ten years, you can imagine a world like this: by then, anyone could have a cryptocurrency wallet, and even a billion people could use it every day, ensuring privacy, security, speed, affordability, and internationalization—all the things originally promised, rather than being distracted by hype and speculation.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments around the world will allow this situation to occur? If the global population were to engage in financial transactions without government control, wouldn't governments immediately collapse?

Sam Bankman-Fried: In fact, there is much discussion about the extent of regulatory control; take Bitcoin as an example, where wallets are anonymous, but every transaction has a public ledger. So, governments can obtain some level of information without complete control.

But it should be noted that not all governments in the world have the same view on this matter. The U.S. government, for example, has had a view on global monetary affairs for the past 30 years, not only the U.S., but countries like France also have similar stances. Another viewpoint you see is more authoritative, even in many authoritarian countries, this control is more closed off. In fact, half of the world's countries do not attempt such large-scale government intervention in daily financial transactions as the U.S. does.

Does SBF Still Have Money?

Tucker Carlson: After all these things, do you still have money?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Basically, no. The company I previously owned has gone bankrupt. If there was no intervention, it would now have about $150 billion in liabilities and about $930 billion in assets. So theoretically, the answer is yes, there was enough money back then or now to repay everyone, even with plenty of interest left over, and to leave hundreds of billions of dollars for investors. But things did not develop that way. Instead, everything was swept into bankruptcy, the assets were quickly depleted by the controllers who made off with tens of billions of dollars in value. It was truly a huge disaster. And my biggest regret in life is that I failed to prevent all of this from happening.

Tucker Carlson: You know everyone in the cryptocurrency industry. Before the indictment and all of this happened, you were one of the most famous people in the industry. To be as honest as possible, do you consider yourself to be the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I don't think that's a crime. So the answer is obviously no. I think the Department of Justice might think I am, but I don't care what they think.

Tucker Carlson: You are now in prison. Anyway, that's their claim. But I want to know, I have indeed criticized your business and similar businesses in the past. However, I won't go into the details of your case because it's too complex. I just want to ask, do you think there is a lot of shady behavior in the crypto industry? Honestly.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, 10 years ago the answer was obviously yes, at least relative to the size of the industry. If you look at around 2014 to 2017, the industry was much smaller than it is now, and a lot of transactions—or at least a significant portion of them—were used for some shady purposes. For example, Silk Road, where people bought drugs online, was a common use of cryptocurrency at the time. Obviously, any industry will have criminals, but over time, the proportion of this part in the industry has significantly decreased. Part of the reason is the growth in other aspects of the crypto space, and also because of more government intervention in anti-money laundering. So, there are still some now, but it's not as widespread as before.

Tucker Carlson: You were once known for the ideology or worldview of "effective altruism"—you could even say it's a religion. At its core, the idea is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and you make money to help as many people as possible. Some have pointed out the irony that when your company collapsed, about a million people lost money. So, in your pursuit of "doing the most good for the most people," a lot of people were hurt. I want to know, has all of this made you reconsider the principles of effective altruism?

Sam Bankman-Fried: It hasn't made me reconsider those principles. Obviously, I feel very bad about what happened. This is not at all what I wanted, nor what anyone intended. If you mess up, the outcome may be different. Ultimately, people got their money back, but the wait was painful. They got back in dollars, not in the original form. And most of what I originally hoped to do for the world disappeared with the collapse of the company.

Tucker Carlson: What I want to say is, I think most people find it difficult to understand this idea: that helping people you have never seen is more worthwhile or valuable than helping people in front of you. In other words, helping your wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, brother, college roommate is more valuable than helping a village in a country you have never been to. I think this is the intuitive feeling of most people. But you disagree.

Sam Bankman-Fried: I disagree, but with one caveat. Indeed, one classic mistake people often make — one I've made at times as well — is assuming you know what people far removed from you need when you don't truly understand them. It's a bit of a top-down approach. You know, many international aid projects have ultimately failed, wasting money entirely, because no one truly understood the lives of those being helped. They just guessed at what the other side needed, and the result was often wrong. For example, they brought a bunch of water pumps to a Fijian village that didn't lack water but lacked food. These people dropped out of Harvard to distribute these unwanted water pumps. Similar examples abound. And when you help people you know, you obviously understand better how to help them. This effect is real. Even if I believe a life in one place is just as important as a life in another place, it doesn't mean you're equally clear on how to help everyone.

Tucker Carlson: I feel like you're almost arguing against your own position. What I mean is, my concern with effective altruism is that it's too easy. For example, eradicating polio is easy, but making the same woman happy for 30 years is incredibly hard. So, perhaps doing the harder things is more meaningful.

Sam Bankman-Fried: What I want to say is, take malaria, for example. No one in the U.S. dies from malaria anymore, basically no one. But globally, about 1 million people still die from malaria every year, which is terrible. It's a disease we should have eradicated by now; we absolutely should address this issue globally. But because it's somewhat "easy," that shouldn't stop us from helping others. You see, if we were to put resources into many interventions in the world's poorest regions, the scale of resources required isn't actually that large. If done efficiently, it wouldn't have a significant impact on our domestic aid. But efficiency is key. You can freely distribute useless water pumps to villages without food, but that won't help anyone.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, I think you make a valid point. Aid to Africa over the past 60 years has proven this, despite life expectancy decreasing. But as a moral issue, how can you prove that while worrying about malaria, your cousin is addicted to Xanax? Shouldn't you address this issue first?

Sam Bankman-Fried: If I can. But ultimately, we all have a responsibility. If I know my cousin well and know how to solve this problem, then I absolutely have a responsibility to do so. But if I try and fail, make no progress, and I can save lives internationally, or someone can, then I don't think that diminishes what they can do internationally, even if they can't solve their own family's problems.

Tucker Carlson: Well, I understand what you're saying. I don't think that's a crazy point of view. One last question: Can you think of a recent clearly successful international aid project?

Sam Bankman-Fried: To some extent, yes, but I wouldn't pinpoint a specific project. This is not a government project but rather some private projects. In fact, malaria is a good example. Through mainly private donations, global malaria incidence has dropped significantly, especially in Africa and India, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives annually, with an average cost of a few thousand dollars per life saved. In relative terms, this is a remarkable success.

We're not talking about 1 trillion dollars here, but rather a few billion dollars that have been very carefully deployed for malaria control. Of course, you can also see some government projects that are completely ineffective. If you're looking for a successful government project, the Marshall Plan might be a good example—although it dates back a long time—it successfully rebuilt Germany after World War II in many ways.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, although we may have undone all of that through blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. But you're right. How old are you now?

Can SBF Really Get Paroled?

Sam Bankman-Fried: To be honest, I'll have to think about that. In prison, time becomes blurry, each day is the same as the one before, all blending together. The answer is, tomorrow is my birthday, so right now I'm 32, but soon to be 33.

Tucker Carlson: How do you plan to celebrate your birthday?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I don't celebrate. I don't really do birthdays when I'm out, and celebrating another year passing in prison doesn't hold much excitement for me.

Tucker Carlson: So you're not going to tell Diddy that tomorrow's your birthday? I don't believe it.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Maybe someone else will tell him, but I don't have that plan.

Tucker Carlson: Well, you'll be 33 tomorrow. If you're not pardoned, at this rate, how old will you be when you get out of prison?

Sam Bankman-Fried: That's a complicated calculation, and I'm not entirely clear on the details because there's a possibility for parole. If you simply add my sentence to my age, the answer is close to 50.

Tucker Carlson: Can you withstand it?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Sorry, I misspoke. With all possible sentence reductions, it could be in my fifties. But the correct answer is, I was convicted at 32, sentenced to 25 years, so that would be 57.

Tucker Carlson: You've served 2 years already, with 23 to go. Do you think you can make it?

Sam Bankman-Fried: That's a good question. I'm not sure. The hardest part is that there's nothing meaningful to do here. You see, there's research showing that the suicide rate in prison is about three times the rate outside. So, multiply a 25-year sentence by 3, plus my 32 years at conviction, you might get an answer. Maybe.

Tucker Carlson: I find this somewhat bizarre. You may be the most extreme example of someone I've talked to who has jumped from one world to a completely different world. You were once in the world of cryptocurrency, and now you're in a world without money. What is the medium of exchange in prison?

Sam Bankman-Fried: You know, it's whatever people have on hand. Like muffins, those little plastic-wrapped muffins you see at gas station counters, kept in a plastic ball, with individually wrapped muffins that have been sitting at room temperature for a week. Imagine something like that; that's the standard. Or a pack of ramen soup, or a pack of fish that looks disgusting, soaked in oil, also at room temperature.

Tucker Carlson: So, you transitioned from cryptocurrency to the muffin economy. Right. How do you compare the two? Obviously, muffins are less likely to circulate internationally, but as a currency, what do you think?

Sam Bankman-Fried: In the short term, muffins are unlikely to become a global reserve currency. They are a demand currency, with no other use and not much store of value. But ultimately, they have some fungibility. Although not entirely fungible, they are close enough. Two muffins are about the same, so you can exchange them. As long as the transaction amount is under $5, they work. But if you want to make a $200 transaction with muffins, that's not realistic.

Tucker Carlson: Too clunky.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Exactly. One thing you quickly realize is that everything in prison is scaled down. You'll see people fighting over a banana, not because they care so much about the banana, but because they have no other outlet.

Tucker Carlson: That sounds harsh. Do you eat those pancakes? Or just use them for trading?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I just use them for trading. I don't eat them. I mainly eat rice, beans, and ramen.

Tucker Carlson: Looks like it's working out for you. Do you have any tattoos?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I don't. I know some people do, but I don't have any myself.

Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about getting one?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I did consider getting a tattoo at one point. But after talking to some of my cellmates about their sanitation process—or lack thereof—the idea was quickly dismissed. I lost interest in getting a tattoo; it's not worth the risk of hepatitis. They probably only sterilize the needle after using it on four or five people.

Why SBF's friends, family, and colleagues all abandoned him

Tucker Carlson: Well, so you won't be getting a tattoo. Now that you've been out of the outside world and facing a 23-year sentence, I'm curious, those people you've helped—I mean, you went to prison for harming someone, but you've also donated millions to help many people in Washington. Did any of them reach out to you, saying, "Good luck, hope everything goes well"? Or did they say nothing at all?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Right after the crash, I received a lot of kind messages from people, including some in Washington. But six months later, no one contacted me. By the time the trial came around, I was in prison, and there was no more communication. It became too politically sensitive, and people didn't want to take the risk of reaching out to me. I even heard that some spoke positively about me privately, but no one was willing to contact me directly.

Tucker Carlson: Has anyone reached out to you? I noticed that someone I thought was your girlfriend testified against you. Did you have friends who stayed loyal to you, or was it almost none?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, but very few. I later realized that anyone close to me was ultimately threatened. They were given two options, one of which could mean decades in prison. Ryan Salem is the most heartbreaking example and, from the government's perspective, the most disgusting one. They accused him of some completely absurd charges. He said, "No, I'll see you in court." So the government came back and said, "Well, what about your pregnant wife? What if we put her in jail?" So he confessed because the government threatened to imprison his wife. No legal system would allow prosecutors to do that. And he wasn't even charged with most of the crimes of the other confessions. Ryan didn't testify at the trial because he refused to lie, refusing to say what the government wanted him to say. As a result, he got a sentence four times longer than the other three combined. The message couldn't be clearer. Was it because he was a Republican, or because he refused to cooperate with the government's lies in court? Those are the only two reasons I can think of for him to be sentenced to seven and a half years.

Tucker Carlson: This is so disgusting. I've interviewed him at home. I believe they even accused his wife. Their actions are completely unethical.

Sam Bankman-Fried: I totally agree. They have violated their commitment, which utterly shatters any notion of their integrity. This is so disgusting. He is a good person, and he should not have to endure this.

Tucker Carlson: Have you realized how rapidly the outside world is changing? By the time you are out of prison, the world may be completely different from when you left. For example, the development of AI, it sounds like we are approaching Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or some kind of singularity.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, I deeply feel this. It's a feeling of the world moving forward while you are left behind.

Tucker Carlson: Is having children part of your effective altruism philosophy?

Sam Bankman-Fried: No. Different people in the community have varying opinions on this. Over the past five years, I felt like I had around 300 children every day—my employees. Obviously, I can't treat all of them like fathers, but I do feel responsible for them. I am very saddened by the fact that their work has been destroyed. But while running FTX, I had almost no personal life. And now in prison, I obviously am not in a position to have children.

Tucker Carlson: Have any of those 300 employees visited you in prison?

Sam Bankman-Fried: No. I think the answer is no. One or two people may have visited.

Tucker Carlson: You might want to consider having a few real children at some point because when things go bad, they will be there for you.

Sam Bankman-Fried: This made me think about what real reliance is and how far the coercive elements in some of our national systems can go. But it also made me realize how crucial it is to have people to rely on.

Tucker Carlson: Others are everything. Sam Bankman-Fried, I appreciate you for accepting this interview, perhaps the only interview where you were not asked about business, as that's someone else's job. But I'm glad we talked about these things, and I hope you say hi to Diddy for us.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Absolutely.

Tucker Carlson: I can't believe you and Diddy are in the same prison.

Sam Bankman-Fried: I know, right? If someone had told me three years ago that I would be spending every day with Diddy, I would have found it very amusing. I wonder if he has also ventured into cryptocurrency?

Tucker Carlson: Life is truly strange. Best of luck to you, thank you. It seems like YouTube is suppressing this show. In a way, this is not surprising, that's what they do. But from another perspective, it's shocking. With so many changes happening in the world, in our economy and politics, on the brink of war, Google has decided that you should receive less information, not more. This is completely wrong. What can you do tomorrow? We can complain, but that's a waste of time. We can't control Google. Or we can find ways to bypass it, to truly get you real information, not intentionally misleading information.

「Original Source」