Rendered at 13:27:15 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
wodow 17 hours ago [-]
I was surprised by the weakness of this article, regardless the potential absurdities of parts of EA.
Why does The Economist consider this the most important issue this week, in a world of complex problems, to splash its first leader on (and more than one page long too)?
__MatrixMan__ 15 hours ago [-]
Effective altruism, like economics, is mostly a bunch post hoc justifications for bad behavior.
> Actually, if you think real hard about it, we're the good guys
--the bad guys
The economist likes it because it resembles what their target audience tells themselves so they can sleep at night.
strken 14 hours ago [-]
Why would a movement which started as nerds buying mosquito nets to stop malaria be "a bunch [of] post hoc justifications for bad behaviour"? You say this like it's an established fact or at least a common argument, yet I've never heard it before.
lux-lux-lux 10 hours ago [-]
A big part of EA is earning to give, i.e. making the big bucks at Torture Nexus, Inc. so you can buy more mosquito nets than you could as an EMT or whatever. It’s not hard to see how this can excuse some pretty terrible behavior, especially if you never actually get around to the buying mosquito nets part.
ben_w 7 hours ago [-]
Not to disagree about the dangers of dangling large amounts of money in front of people that comes with a promise it will be earmarked for (in this case) good causes, because that is exactly what went wrong in the case of Sam Bankman-Fried, but:
In the past, the community made the mistake of becoming too closely associated with “earning to give”. Many people involved in effective altruism still think this is a good strategy for some people, particularly those who have a good personal fit for high-paying careers. But donating to charity is not the only way to have a large impact. Many people can do even better by using their careers to help others more directly. Many people in the community do both.
> Many people can do even better by using their careers to help others more directly.
This sentence is too short for such a complex topic. Whether you can (or should at all) mix your political projects with your career is an entire debate. That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
I was initially curious about effective altruism ~10 years ago, but fortunately i had enough political background to realize that this is essentially a movement of silicon valley sociopaths virtue-painting their bad behavior and their working for the most evil industries on earth in the name of a hypothetical future greater good that will never materialize because they keep supporting the capitalist system that's destroying our planet. It's like saying you're gonna work for Darth Vader because the pay is good so you'll provide good for the universe; it's entirely fucked up and does not hold any form of scrutiny from actually-rational people with a modest social sciences / political background.
ben_w 4 hours ago [-]
> This sentence is too short for such a complex topic. Whether you can (or should at all) mix your political projects with your career is an entire debate.
And it is a debate they (or at least the ones around here, I'm in Europe, having turned down each opportunity to relocate to the USA) will encourage you to think about.
For the purposes of "FAQ to sell you on the difference with earn-to-give", when earn-to-give is also a complex topic with an entire debate, the sentence they wrote is an appropriate size of answer, even if I find their writing style to be "preach to the choir" rather than actually saying something that would convince an outsider.
(Regarding un-convincing writing style: look at how caveated that whole quotation is. This is typical nerd writing (and I say that as a nerd), not bold "written in primary colours" language that political, business, and charity slogans use).
> That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
They've definitely got political activities amongst their piles of recommendations, so I don't know what you have in mind here that makes them fail it. (Also, thanks to the way political language is a treadmill, when you say "conservative" I don't know if you mean "small government", "Trumpist", "pre-Trump Republican party", "Chesterton's fence", or something else; US use of the word has always been very different from European use of the term).
Don't get me wrong: I think EA is not particularly good at the "effective" part despite their attempts (and name), but you're not making a strong case here.
simianwords 6 hours ago [-]
Lots of EA criticisms come from literal extremists who consider the mere aspect of earning money in free market itself to be evil. EA is fine and has issues but it needs critic from more normal people.
lux-lux-lux 36 minutes ago [-]
Not sure what you’re talking about, most of the real criticism of EA came in the wake of SBF and that was across the political spectrum; if you look at the ‘Debate’ section of the Wikipedia entry the critics and their positions are very grounded. David Brooks is not a ‘literal extremist.’
selfhoster1312 5 hours ago [-]
We don't have a free market and there never has been one: corruption and nepotism is the source of all great wealth in any capitalist society. Whether we should have one at all is a different debate.
Earning money is not the problem. Most of us have had (or still have) morally-questionable jobs to put food on the table. That's a reasonable trade-off until we have a better, more ethical society. But making it a moral argument to work for the most evil corporations on earth to do good just doesn't make sense. At which point do you become the bad guy you're trying to avoid being through effective altruism?
It's not a competition, but it really feels like they're all trying to win that title.
nullc 10 hours ago [-]
> especially if you never actually get around to the buying mosquito nets part
Or instead get brain-wormed into giving all your torment nexus dollars to "ai safety" cult that tells you that you're helping to prevent the endless torture of all sentient minds that could ever exist in the entire universe.
Hubbard proved that you can create an effective cult out of bad science fiction-- perhaps it should be surprising that it took so long for someone to improve on the design...
__MatrixMan__ 9 hours ago [-]
Also, all the bad things you did at Torment Nexus Inc... They get a head start on whatever good things you do with the money. Even if the cult is effective, it's playing catch-up.
__MatrixMan__ 13 hours ago [-]
I don't know. Lots of movements lose their way. I just know that every time it comes up, the story is that some nerd with a lot of big ideas ended up getting carried away and causing a bunch of harm. The article brings up Sam Bankman-Fried, for instance. But you could also look at the obvious scam that WorldCoin was. Or look at all of the preventable respiratory illnesses which are being caused by the datacenter buildout, and the corresponding mantra re: we have to go fast so AI is smart enough to cure diseases.
If you wanna do good in the world, you can't just aim a bunch of money at a goal and expect the good to happen, you gotta get your hands dirty and course correct when your original plan turns out to be more harmful than helpful. I'm sure there are a lot of good intentions in there, but from the outside it's looking like the supposed rationality has been compromised by greed at the expense of the supposed altruism. As expressions of altruism go, EA just doesn't seem very effective.
Loquebantur 13 hours ago [-]
The article reads like a smear campaign and the actual target appears to be the opposition to unrestricted AI development.
The claims made there are beyond absurd and based on a remarkable absence of anything resembling reason.
That's echoed by a surprising amount of people here.
spicyusername 2 hours ago [-]
started as
The theory of effective altruism is fine. A sort of pragmatic utilitarianism that includes the future.
But the practice of effective altruism and the problematic influential figures who are vocal effective altruists is what is bringing all of the negative attention.
tmnvix 9 hours ago [-]
I can't answer your question as to why, but the only person that has ever tried to convince me to consider effective altruism was in charge of marketing for the New Zealand Taxpayer's Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Taxpayers%27_Union). Even at the time (without knowing much about EA) it seemed immediately clear that this person was essentially 'ethics washing'.
>economics, is mostly a bunch post hoc justifications for bad behavior
and your definitions of bad behavior are therefore not post hoc, so let me hear your definitions.
__MatrixMan__ 8 hours ago [-]
A definition is a lot to ask for. If you truly need somebody to define "bad" for you, you're asking in the wrong place.
But we don't need to define it to know it when we see it. Here are some examples of bad behavior which is encouraged by the way we currently practice economics:
- Operating generators in violation of local regulation such that the neighborhood around your new data center now has a smattering of new respiratory illnesses is bad behavior. The economic system we've built encouraged that outcome by focusing only on the consent of whatever banker granted the loan and not on the consent of the nearby community (relevant because the loan created the money which then bought the illegal generators). We further encourage abuses of this kind by letting irrational markets determine that it's admirable, because if the stock price went up then surly it must be so, and by doing so we subsequently increase the operator's ability to take out more loans of this kind. People are dying of lung cancer and economic indicators are saying "all systems go."
- Sending weapons to terrorists with the understanding that once they destabilize the regional government, they'll give you a favorable deal re: making off with whatever local resources you're after is bad behavior. That's basically US foreign policy in South America in the 80's, and we provided teams of economists to help draft the new dictators' constitutions to ensure that we could continue to exploit those countries long after.
- Charging $80k for enough Sovaldi to treat a Hepatitis C infection is bad behavior. It's not difficult to synthesize (people have done it in their garages for <$500), and the risk of spreading further infection because you can't afford to treat yourself is high. Society bears a tremendous cost because Gilead has decided that the economics of the situation justify the price they're setting.
Economists tell people that these bad things are unfortunate consequences of a system that for the most part is a good thing. But when they're pressed to support that claim they always do so against a meaningless background, something having to do with barter, as if it's not obvious that if we didn't have a system with this broken design, we wouldn't go back to the stone ages, we'd instead have a different system with a potentially less broken design.
Despite resting on such a feeble value proposition re: the current status quo, economists don't seem at all motivated to explore alternatives either. They appear to be rather happily at work for powerful men who are hurting people, where they manufacture for those men justifications about why the pain is in fact an unavoidable consequence of the laws of physics, and no something that they should feel guilty about.
I realize that, like effective altruists, there are probably a lot of good intentions among economists. It's just hard to look at history and come to any conclusion besides that they're not very good at resisting to attempts to corrupt those intentions.
lanfeust6 14 hours ago [-]
The guys who were obsessed with maximizing efficacy of charitable giving, and then later AI risk, are "justifying bad behavior". Right.
cgio 14 hours ago [-]
I am not familiar with their beliefs (open to learning). But what circulates is troubling. E.g. statistically optimising for future even if it means harming current can be bad dressed in an excuse. Assigning value e.g. to lives (from prawns to humans) can also be a statistical way to do harm with an excuse. Overall, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…
Loquebantur 13 hours ago [-]
This reads more like an orchestrated proxy smear campaign to attack the actual thing they're after: the opposition to unrestricted AI.
cgio 13 hours ago [-]
The smear campaign will work if that’s all that’s out there. Are they public with their beliefs/principles or does someone need to go through levels of billions valuation to know the truth.
Loquebantur 11 hours ago [-]
The article here pretty much debunks itself given the over-the-top absurdity and irrationality of its "arguments". But of course only when read critically in the first place.
cgio 10 hours ago [-]
When two opposing forces meet, you don’t get truth from either side, you get it by critically looking at what’s left between the lines. And it doesn’t look good for EA if I go by the discussion here. Lots of pushing problematic to crazies and anecdotal altruism that is not in any way related to EA principles specifically. I don’t judge. Everyone is entitled to do what they think is best. But we can also be concerned on our side on the impact EAs actions can have on us who are not in agreement with the vagueness of it. And we can say that it is looking as much about altruism as Scientology is about science.
lanfeust6 12 hours ago [-]
> I am not familiar with their beliefs (open to learning)
That much is clear. No one "owns" or "leads" EA, it's not a monolith; people have their own beliefs and co-opt it, including crazies. The only common tenet is in the name.
Notwithstanding that "shrimp welfare" and the like is in the margins, it does not preclude the overwhelmingly anthropocentric charitable giving by most members.
I mean, the most popular writer associated with that world, Scott Alexander, donated his kidney just to help others. Knowing the good people are trying to do, it's unseemly to me for EA not only to be discarded but viciously attacked because of "vibes" and weirdos who associate themselves with it.
You used the term "an excuse" twice; for what, a hidden motive to do harm? I think some types like Bentham's Bulldog are wrong or misguided in some respects, that doesn't mean you can leap to some notion that they want to harm humanity in the most stupid way possible: donating a meagre sum to shrimp welfare.
cgio 11 hours ago [-]
I wouldn’t be against the co opt interpretation and I do believe people will be co opting something both with good and bad or crazy intentions. The thing is, if a fraction that co opts is so overwhelmingly outranks everyone else, then the original intent may end up the fringe. From my perspective the issue starts with the name. Why effective? The moment you introduce an optimisation problem you open the back door to biases. I would suggest blind altruism. Engineers can accept readily that random processes can optimise. Let the randomness optimise blindly and just be altruistic. You don’t have to publish an altruism balance sheet.
abathologist 10 hours ago [-]
Well... look at the behavior, it is bad. They use the things you say here to justify it, soo... yes.
lux-lux-lux 10 hours ago [-]
Look up ‘earning to give’ and think about the implications of that when a few thousand worth of mosquito nets buys a human life.
stefangordon 14 hours ago [-]
Because Anthropic is the final manifestation of EA and is about to raise two trillion dollars.
Loquebantur 13 hours ago [-]
This is beyond absurd.
Effective altruism originates from the intention to rationally approach the obvious question, how to do the most good in the world. That's obviously not a bad thing?
The article here goes on a grotesque witch hunt, claiming baselessly things like "polyamory" was widespread among "the movements" adherents.
You here postulate, Anthropic was a "final" manifestation of that movement. How? Why? Do they practice polyamory there?
nradov 13 hours ago [-]
Trying to apply rationality in domains where it's ineffective is obviously a bad thing. In the real world, only a limited subset of issues can be reduced to logic and calculations. To believe otherwise is pure hubris, and if you've read the classical tragedies you know the results.
Loquebantur 13 hours ago [-]
What now? The main thing about rational (logical) arguments is to make explicit the domain of their applicability and ensure that fits the given situation.
The social myth of important social questions not being amenable to rational consideration is a political tool, not scientific truth. The classical literature doesn't help there.
AndrewKemendo 12 hours ago [-]
I suggest you read the 2 cultures, that will help you navigate this issue.
Most people do not believe that everything is measurable unfortunately
Yes, I'm aware, I'm simply surprised to read that sentiment here.
Not everything is measurable though. There are (pretty unexpected) constraints on practicality, but also logical restrictions people tend to forget about.
As an interesting example in the context here, consider the question what constitutes history. There are many other things with great import you can't really measure the important part of.
wolvesechoes 5 hours ago [-]
The issue with this stance is that rationality shouldn't be reduced to "logic" and efficiency. When it is, then bad things happen.
Another issue with EA is that it is yet another trendy thing among nerds and techbros that was iterated hundreds of times in philosophy under general debate on consequencialism/utilitarism. Of course nerds and techbros think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, so they don't bother engaging with that debate in honest manner.
jswelker 12 hours ago [-]
See Hamlet, who famously lost everything after basing his charitable giving strategy on pure reason.
Quartzium 11 hours ago [-]
>Effective altruism originates from the intention to rationally approach the obvious question, how to do the most good in the world.
Rationality tends to fail spectacularly when basing it on wrong assumptions. Which are subtly made.
Loquebantur 11 hours ago [-]
If so, why don't you point them out explicitly?
It's pretty wild how people denounce the very possibility of approaching that question rationally, while doing so in an obviously irrational way.
Quartzium 6 hours ago [-]
My point was not against rationality, rather to other necessary aspects which are, again, subtly ignored, or improperly dealt with. Filling in the gaps when you do not know what you do not know can be a dangerous thing.
claytongulick 12 hours ago [-]
> claiming baselessly things like "polyamory" was widespread among "the movements" adherents.
Which is especially weird to do in 2026. I mean, I get the salacious clickbait, but seriously, at this point does anyone really give a shit what consenting adults do in their private lives?
I remember when outrage peddler Laura Loomer did a big pearl clutch on X about some other conservative being into consensual non-monagamy, and the collective response from everyone from all political stripes was a giant shrug.
nullc 10 hours ago [-]
Some of the allegations involve minors, people whom are lured into economically dependent conditions, and group pressure situations where consent is not so easily defined (no matter how much motivated reasoning is abused to rationalize breaking with 'outmoded conventions' like not seducing subordinates).
But part of it is also a more general point: Their plan is to build an "AI God" constructed according to their own moral theory before anyone else, and that it will prevent anyone else from creating a competing god-- the absurdity of this plan doesn't prevent the effort from creating terrible harm (e.g. the corporate monopolization of AI, mass surveillance on unimaginable scale, etc). The AI safety faction sees itself as moral guardians of humanity's future-- and it's absolutely relevant that many people would consider them weird and that some would consider them (rightly or wrongly) outright morally repugnant.
You lose your right to have no one else worry about what you do in your private life when you start making plans to take over the world, even if you think it's in everyone's best interest. Every other modern authoritarian dictator also though their actions were in the public's interest.
ninalanyon 4 hours ago [-]
> at this point does anyone really give a shit what consenting adults do in their private lives?
Perhaps people in your circle are above that. But you don't have to cast your net very wide to find someone who thinks that same sex relationships are an abomination.
> big pearl clutch on X about some other conservative being into consensual non-monagamy, and the collective response from everyone from all political stripes was a giant shrug.
Twitter was not representative of everyone and X is even less so.
wolvesechoes 5 hours ago [-]
> does anyone really give a shit what consenting adults do in their private lives?
Yes, we do this in 2026 as we did for millenia. That's called society. Glad to help you.
nullc 10 hours ago [-]
> Effective altruism originates from the intention to rationally approach the obvious question, how to do the most good in the world. That's obviously not a bad thing?
To use the movement's own language: At the best EA's are paperclip maximizers. Why is it that in one context people recognize formula driven 'rational' utility maximizing as obviously dangerous and evil, but in another see it as the ultimate expression of good. It's a specious argument to go "my objectives good, clippies bad". It may well be true but the maximizing party never knows their goals are bad!
"Rational 'good' maximizing" is itself problematic, because it disregard the danger inherit in any utility function. The nazi campaign to cleanse their population was motivated and justified in part by the latest in eugenic science.
Absolutely central to the EA centered facets of "ai safety" is imposing controls on people development and use of AI-- or even more broadly on their behavior in order to prevent creation of any AI that doesn't follow their definition of 'good' (which they equate to the literal destruction of the universe). It isn't just crazy, it's evil, and it can be reliably predicted to end in harm at the scale of genocide if it doesn't fizzle on its own.
The weird sex cult crap is there, along with the embezzling, nepotism, and other dramacrap-- but I think these are just a common side effect of grifter driven cults rather than being integral to anything that need concern the public. AI doomerism would still be a dangerous cult even if they were all chaste monks.
ben_w 6 hours ago [-]
> "Rational 'good' maximizing" is itself problematic, because it disregard the danger inherit in any utility function.
It only gets so if you push beyond the model which you used to approximate "good", not so much when you're working at the margins.
When I've looked at what they do, while there are some huge blind spots (like Sam Bankman-Fried), they do also say "don't bother giving money to cause XYZ, they have more than they can spend already, donate skills to them or money somewhere else").
They also don't collectively have one single utility function, their big thing is telling other people how to maximise their own; in this regard, your criticism is essentially "all effective advice is evil".
> The nazi campaign to cleanse their population was motivated and justified in part by the latest in eugenic science.
I'm deeply suspicious of everyone who says "we've solved all the problems with eugenics, this time we can do it right and make everyone healthy!" for much the same reason I care about AI safety: humans are kinda idiots with this sort of power. Too many blind spots about the downsides, even for those involved who are not explicitly power-seeking.
That said, I'm sure some anti-car campaign has said a similar thing as you about Autobahns. It's a terrible argument.
> Absolutely central to the EA centered facets of "ai safety" is imposing controls on people development and use of AI-- or even more broadly on their behavior in order to prevent creation of any AI that doesn't follow their definition of 'good' (which they equate to the literal destruction of the universe). It isn't just crazy, it's evil, and it can be reliably predicted to end in harm at the scale of genocide if it doesn't fizzle on its own.
I think you misunderstand: Their (some of their) definition of 'good' in this context being 'do not destroy the universe' is due to how incredibly bad humanity currently is at aligning AI with literally any human intention. Like, our understanding of AI alignment simply isn't good enough today for us to be able to answer a question like "if you extrapolate current models to arbitrary skill level, do we get something closer to a Warhammer-40k-esque GrimDark future, or closer to Iain M. Bank's Fully Automated Luxury Communism utopia?"
imtringued 6 hours ago [-]
>I think you misunderstand: Their (some of their) definition of 'good' in this context being 'do not destroy the universe' is due to how incredibly bad humanity currently is at aligning AI with literally any human intention. Like, our understanding of AI alignment simply isn't good enough today for us to be able to answer a question like "if you extrapolate current models to arbitrary skill level, do we get something closer to a Warhammer-40k-esque GrimDark future, or closer to Iain M. Bank's Fully Automated Luxury Communism utopia?"
As far as I am concerned? We're headed straight to Fully Automated Luxury Communism utopia. The dumbest part about AI is that nobody is using it for societal critique. If people are already impressed by its coding abilities, they should check out what it can do for organizing people in a way that minimizes the need for public institutions.
I mean I asked the AI how to fund open source software using a financial analogy and it straight up told me. When you fund a non-exclusive good like a publicly available open source software, what you need to sell isn't the code but its continued maintenance and availability and the only way you can accomplish that is by guaranteeing that you will archive and shut down the project the moment the money runs out. Then you sell insurance against the shut down of the project. You don't beg for money, because that creates free-riding. The more secure the funding of the project is, the less incentive there is to fund it by buying the insurance. Hence, your project must always be at the brim of total collapse. The risk of the worst outcome needs to be near certain, and simultaneously never happen, because everyone is buying the insurance.
ben_w 6 hours ago [-]
> As far as I am concerned? We're headed straight to Fully Automated Luxury Communism utopia.
If you can prove it, you'd make a lot of people sleep better at night.
If you can prove either of those is more likely than a paperclip optimiser, you'd still be doing pretty well.
(Not that a citation from fiction is worth much, but even Iain M. Bank's Culture series had hegemonising swarms).
imtringued 6 hours ago [-]
I actually updated my comment. There is the proof. Also after asking AI, it told me that strategy is literally 1:1 the EA strategy so no wonder they hate AI.
Edit:
The AI pointed out that it is effectively a protection racket, but then I pointed out that there can be competing protection rackets driving the cost down. You know what EA hates? Competition. For EA to continue to exist, humanity must suffer.
ben_w 6 hours ago [-]
That's not even shaped like a proof.
Of anything, let alone your specific claim.
> The AI pointed out that it is effectively a protection racket, but then I pointed out that there can be competing protection rackets driving the cost down. You know what EA hates? Competition. For EA to continue to exist, humanity must suffer.
Likewise this is also not actually shaped like a proof, it's just rhetoric.
imtringued 6 hours ago [-]
>Why is it that in one context people recognize formula driven 'rational' utility maximizing as obviously dangerous and evil, but in another see it as the ultimate expression of good. It's a specious argument to go "my objectives good, clippies bad".
Actually, you're assuming their talking points when they talk negatively about AI.
What if AI will not bring about paper clip maximization? What if it will bring about something much worse? Like beating the effective altruists at their own game and putting them out of a job by being a superhuman rational effective altruist? No! That must never happen! AI is dangerous!
10 hours ago [-]
14 hours ago [-]
Daishiman 16 hours ago [-]
[dead]
fwlr 16 hours ago [-]
What’s that thing pg said about a submarine? Somebody’s got a dossier of all the weirdest things about effective altruism they can find (not that it’s in short supply), and they’re out there convincing reporters who need to run articles about AI that this is the ideology of the AI guys, and wouldn’t your readers like to know all the lurid details?
While it’s probably something prosaic as “Anthropic pays the most lip service to EA, this makes them look bad” or “Our employees are leaning EA and it’s causing problems, things would be easier if they were too embarrassed to admit they were EA”, I do wonder - the board member who instigated the firing of Sam Altman from OpenAI does happen to be a long-time effective altruist…
PoignardAzur 16 hours ago [-]
> There is an elusive quality to effective altruism. The movement is tiny, with an informal membership probably in the tens of thousands, many of whom claim to be only “EA adjacent”.
Oof, that one hit close to home.
thelastgallon 3 hours ago [-]
Fortunately, SBF had a secret weapon: the EA community. “All the employees, all the funding—everything was EA to start with.”
Effective Altruism is helping each other be 'altruists'.
Why did I hire Caroline for Manifund?
Manifund needs talent. Leading AI labs warn about recursive self improvement; poverty and disease remain unsolved; billions of animals suffer hell on earth. I, my team, and many EAs I know, are often burning the midnight candle to address these wrongs. I don’t wish to sideline a pair of capable hands.
If this is "conquered the world", one wonders what The Economist thinks defeat would resemble.
mohamedkoubaa 17 hours ago [-]
There was modest farmland in Iraq managed by a trust for about 400 years that paid for the wedding dresses for all women in the nearby town. The colonial administrators found this ineffective and dismantled the trust fund and privatized the land.
There is something to be said about how we sometimes fail to account for the effectiveness of ineffective altruism.
SpicyLemonZest 16 hours ago [-]
When people talk about ineffective altruism, they're generally talking about organizations like the American Heart Association, which spends over half of annual donations on payroll (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135...). I don't think many people in the effective altruist movement would complain about a targeted trust that successfully and reliably achieves some niche goal.
UncleMeat 16 hours ago [-]
Imagine you have a charitable organization that receives funds and then pays its staff of doctors to provide free treatment to the poor. All of their donations would be spent on payroll and overhead. But this would not demonstrate that the organization is wasteful.
SpicyLemonZest 15 hours ago [-]
While that's true, the AHA does not perform medical treatments or have an in-house research lab.
If someone's really passionate about putting up healthy living posters and shifting the cost of CPR education from healthcare providers, more power to them! But my guess is that most AHA donors don't know or ask what exactly their donations are accomplishing.
jefftk 15 hours ago [-]
A lot of what the AHA does runs via payroll: advocacy, training, writing guidelines, etc. The implication of "payroll" is that the money is all going to administration, but their programs involve a lot of staff time.
(I have a generally EA view of the world and I don't think the AHA is an especially valuable donation opportunity.)
SpicyLemonZest 15 hours ago [-]
That's fair. I personally was a bit put out when I discovered this, I had assumed most of the donations were going to research, but advocacy and training have some value and I could believe that other people fully expect that's what the AHA does.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 13 hours ago [-]
If you want a better understanding of what the AHA spends their money on I'd recommend checking their financial reports.
29% of their expenses go to paying education/training staff and the expenses involved with operating that but about the same amount comes back from their trainings in revenue. And that amount that comes back is actually near equal to all the donations they get.
Another ~31% goes to public health education staff.
~5% goes to operating various community services.
~18% goes to research.
and then overall management is ~8% with fundraising expenses making up the remaining ~9%.
For a group split between running various emergency training and certification programs (ex CPR), general public health awareness and education, advocacy, and research, those are pretty reasonable numbers.
No, but they're too busy to notice stuff like that because they're so focused on trying to prevent a 0.01% chance of human extinction with error bars of +/- 0.01%.
mohamedkoubaa 16 hours ago [-]
When effective altruists talk about ineffective altruism, they talk about AHA. When I talk about ineffective altruism, I talk about things like a targeted trust.
It's the EA people who generalize from AHA to make grand ethical claims that lead to absurdity.
cgio 13 hours ago [-]
When I talk about ineffective altruism I talk about accumulating capital and shutting everyone out of innovation in the name of regulatory protection. Nothing like a daddy to protect us sounds like altruism.
mohamedkoubaa 13 hours ago [-]
So.. government?
cgio 13 hours ago [-]
That too… are they building a government? Because that would be a much more honest name in that case.
13 hours ago [-]
giacomoforte 17 hours ago [-]
I do not think you can call it a social movement because it does not have any significant mass of people behind it and by its nature, never will.
barbazoo 17 hours ago [-]
Maybe if you consider the wealth of the in group vs out group. It makes more sense to me that way. Scary how few people it might need to keep the world from moving forward.
bawolff 17 hours ago [-]
Social movements come in all sizes. Its a bunch of people who all agree on something. That is a social movement.
giacomoforte 17 hours ago [-]
You can call it a subculture or philosophy or movement, but social movement to me implies something with broad appeal.
__MatrixMan__ 15 hours ago [-]
Agreed. If society is unmoved, it wasn't a social movement.
saghm 14 hours ago [-]
It sounds like you're saying social movements by definition can't fail, which doesn't seem like the most sensible definition to me
throwaway27448 13 hours ago [-]
Man who refers to Heaven's Gate as a social movement
dleslie 17 hours ago [-]
It is a social movement of note and importance because of the power wielded by its adherents.
bayarearefugee 17 hours ago [-]
> It is a social movement of note and importance because of the power wielded by its adherents.
We should tax the shit out of them, if only to reduce the unelected power their wealth buys.
Just like we should tax the shit out of the non-EA ultra wealthy.
We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great
wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.
throwawayk7h 14 hours ago [-]
EA people tend to be in favour of raising taxation. The "giving what we can" pledge is essentially a pledge to voluntarily increase your own taxes in lieu of government taxes.
tancop 8 hours ago [-]
Giving away your wealth in ways you think are the best for society is not the same as letting society decide for itself through democracy.
And they support raising taxes because it's a good way to signal that you're "for the people" and cheap if you care about power more than money. A billionaire CEO will stay a billionaire if their income tax is 90% and unrealized gains tax same as their portfolios growth, and stay a CEO even if they go broke.
The important part for them is power over other peoples lives because that's exactly what you need if you believe you're a special "rational agent" who is responsible for pushing humanity in the right direction. That power can come from shady think tanks, government jobs or controlling a trillion dollar company.
dleslie 16 hours ago [-]
I strongly agree, but I don't think the USA is capable of doing that. That sort of socialist communitarianism is at odds with the objectivist individualism that they commonly valorize, and underpins most of their heroic stories.
throwaway27448 13 hours ago [-]
You might call it a capital movement
mohamedkoubaa 17 hours ago [-]
A better term would be an 'order'
xg15 16 hours ago [-]
How about "conspiracy" then?
verdverm 14 hours ago [-]
you have to measure it like they do, a weighted net-worth average
the more you have, the more you matter
EA-3167 17 hours ago [-]
It’s another bubble that a handful of people invented for themselves to insulate them from the reality of the effect on the world. It’s one of the most genuinely pathetic “movements” I’ve ever seen.
williamcotton 17 hours ago [-]
Will MacAskill responds to our cover story on effective altruism
That guy is a scammer who participated in the Alameda / FTX scam: he was SBF's mentor and fled the ship, like a rat, before SBF was sent to jail.
So far and as long as I know the ill-acquired mansion in England by MacAskill with 15 million GBP stolen by SBF hasn't been clawed back yet (but it may: in other fraud cases funds and properties have been clawed back as much as 20 years after the fact).
And he certainly didn't hand the mansion back without being asked: for thieves don't do that.
A despicable human being.
Now I know why he's given a voice in some publications: it's for the same reason SBF was presented as the 2nd coming of Christ before his scam came to light. These people have relations and splurge (corrupt) money on a lot of people.
What's not clear is why he's given a voice on HN.
echthesia 12 hours ago [-]
The mansion in question (Wytham Abbey) was purchased as an event venue with funds from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna via Coefficient Giving. No funding from FTX was involved. (The Effective Ventures Foundation did receive unrelated funding from FTX, but that was returned in a settlement with the bankruptcy estate in 2023.)
13 hours ago [-]
aaron695 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
This one's interesting in claiming to be first/early to worry about pandemics (prior to COVID) and AI existential dilemma (before ChatGPT) as, kind of, stakes in the ground justification for 'the value of the effective altruism movement'. I find that interesting in that I don't see much publicity from the big EA guns supporting the recommendations given by pandemic experts around the world. Can we hear from some of us powerful members in defence of Fauci? If not, the entire movement is a fucking scam full of cowards.
Feels like shaky justification for the validity of the 'movement'. But I'm suspicious of any belief system once it gets to a group size large enough to create a full-circle-jerk. Especially if many members have enough wealth to insulate themselves against the worries of your average human.
jibalt 14 hours ago [-]
EAs like Nick Bostrom argue that we have a greater moral obligation to hypothetical trillions of future persons--including an obligation to see to it that they come into existence--than to people who actually exist. Personally, I think that's insane sociopathy.
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
Thinking that far into the future, such that it affects actions one takes in the present is a true detachment from reality.
If that's a motivating factor for how they live their life, then they need hospitalization for their own good.
KerrAvon 14 hours ago [-]
Pretty much what I think of Anthropic's management, man. Dario, at least, needs serious psychiatric help.
BLKNSLVR 13 hours ago [-]
Musk, Altman, Zuck...
__MatrixMan__ 13 hours ago [-]
The question is: is the system selecting for psycopaths, or creating them?
BLKNSLVR 12 hours ago [-]
Selecting then distilling.
16 hours ago [-]
17 hours ago [-]
doctoboggan 17 hours ago [-]
Interesting, I wasn't aware that EA had made it into the American culture wars. There will be a ton of grist for the conspiracy mills with all the sex cults, murders, and high power democratic donations. Can't see it going well for the EA crowd, or democrats.
whatshisface 14 hours ago [-]
This isn't an indicator, to be part of a culture war something has to be accepted as normal by half. Culture wars are driven by the shock of someone telling you the most normal thing about your upbringing and parent's values is in fact a horrible deviance. The article here is closer to, "we found something we can publish bad news about, without offending our funders."
drywater2 17 hours ago [-]
EA sounds like an excuse for billionaires to continue being the opposite of altruist.
furyofantares 16 hours ago [-]
We will use our big brains to draw bold conclusions about the most effective use of money, without the burden of conventional wisdom.
For our first bold conclusion we have determined that all of the world's money should be in the hands of people with big brains who intend to draw bold conclusions about the most effective use of money, without the burden of conventional wisdom.
This concludes the planning phase. There will be an additional planning phase once we've collected all of the money, we promise.
cogman10 17 hours ago [-]
That's the take away I get. It's a philosophical justification to being as greedy and heartless as possible because in the future the money you got from burning down the world could potentially be used to reverse that damage.
jefftk 15 hours ago [-]
Very few billionaires are EAs. A few more have a generally EA approach to their giving. But billionaires are generally not that keen on EA because it would involve donating almost all their money.
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
I get the feeling that the current membership is not, in fact, donating almost all their money.
jefftk 13 hours ago [-]
If you're a regular person and you start taking an EA approach to the world, that is probably not going to look like donating almost all your money: most people don't have that much disposable income, and applying your working hours directly to important problems will often be more effective. But if you have billions of dollars you totally should be trying to figure out how to give most of it away effectively.
BLKNSLVR 13 hours ago [-]
I agree with that.
mcv 5 hours ago [-]
That's definitely how it comes across now. Especially with all the TESCREAL weirdness that gets attached to it. But originally, EA really was extremely altruist. Early pioneers were practically Francis of Assissi-style vow of poverty people, giving away the majority of their income to the worthiest cause they could find.
But somewhere along the way it attracted the attention of tech bros, billionaires and AI believers, and the whole thing seems to have gotten corrupted way beyond recognition. I think it started by telling people that instead of becoming a volunteer, they could also become a stock trader and donate all of their income to fund a dozen volunteers. And once you've got that kind of money, well, isn't just donating 10% already pretty good? And then came the AI concerns, which mostly seem to have become a reason to hype up irresponsible AI use, rather than the opposite (note that both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded based on the concerns for the threat AI might pose to humanity), and then the Longtermist idea that the concerns of potentially trillions of humans in the very distant future should outweigh the concerns of the mere billions alive today, lead to basically an excuse not to help people today anymore. Also, all those millionaire and billionaire tech bros are still millionaires and billionaires. Is there any EA adherent who has given away that level of wealth?
So while the poverty and altruism of the early pioneers was extremely inspiring, the current visible public face of EA is exactly the opposite.
Basically EA operates as an insurance system for billionaires who want to gain enough wealth and power to collapse humanity until they need to insurance against the collapse of humanity so that they can keep extracting anyway.
TZubiri 16 hours ago [-]
"Can I have a dollar mister?"
"Sorry I can't it's unethical to give more to you just because you are closer to me, I need to do some excel sheets and maximize my mosquito net donations to africa."
AnimalMuppet 16 hours ago [-]
They define "altruism" as "don't actually do anything about the problems of today, so that you can do more about them tomorrow". But does tomorrow ever come?
Bluntly, I trust Jesus more than them. And in Luke 16:10, Jesus said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."
imtringued 5 hours ago [-]
I think you got it backwards. Their motivation is this "I must look charitable, but if there are no problems, then there is no reason to donate, hence I must operate at both ends. I must create problems by earning money and then solve them by spending money."
mcv 5 hours ago [-]
That certainly seems to be the motivation of AI companies warning us about the threat of AI to humanity, while working as hard as possible to bring it about.
oulipo 17 hours ago [-]
I've always been wary of effective altruism. Anything that geek and people want to "optimize out" by engineering has a risk of just being a "let's ride very fast towards that wall" kind of venture
Angostura 15 hours ago [-]
What about if it were called 'evidence-based altruism'?
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
The name always ends up being an umbrella for the craziness that groups of like minded rich-beyond-your-wildest-dreams folks will turn it into.
It's practically an axiom.
How do you turn a good idea into an existential threat to humanity? Let a like-minded group of very rich people commandeer it for a short while.
mcv 5 hours ago [-]
If they had to show the results of the number of lives they saved, that would certainly get rid of the speculative longtermist bullshit or their focus on AI.
makeitdouble 14 hours ago [-]
”KPI based altruism" could be more accurate ?
hypfer 17 hours ago [-]
> The movement’s long-standing fears of an AI catastrophe make it a villain in the eyes of the Trump administration. “Americanism, not effective altruism,” is the Department of War’s attack line. The president’s allies are going after Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, as a representative of effective altruism.
I'd wager that it's simply the government wanting absolute power (as it should) and going after misaligned oligarchs.
So, effectively, power struggles in circles beyond our reach.
Arguably a good thing that the government would eventually try to claw back power there, given that in theory, it's democratically elected and all.
SillyUsername 16 hours ago [-]
The purpose of the government is to serve the people, not "absolute power", unless you enjoy kings and fiefdoms.
hypfer 16 hours ago [-]
Yes, and how does it do that if random people without a democratic mandate can just hold power over some important resource to the point where they steer society itself?
That's what is meant by "absolute power"
AnimalMuppet 16 hours ago [-]
No, in a system of limited government, the government should not want absolute power. If it wants it, it should absolutely not get it.
Mind you, I don't want the effective altruists to have the kind of power they seem to want, either...
throwaway27448 13 hours ago [-]
Frankly, with the EA folks I've met (only in the bay area btw), none of them seem well-read enough for me to trust them with a cent.
wolvesechoes 5 hours ago [-]
To me most representatives of EA resemble people that read about goodness in the book, formulated some notion of it solely through that reading, and then designed an approach to bring it to life. Purely intellectual, not something experienced and lived through, what is the case for the normal people. Very uncanny, like psychopaths learning about empathy from the lecture, and then deciding they would become empathetic based on the notes they took.
Their morality is like musicality of someone that learned how to read sheet music and learned how every note sounds like or even how whole chords sound like, but never heard any music being played. Music is not about computing harmonic formula, and goodness is not about solving utility equation.
‘We have discovered happiness,’ say the Last Men, and they blink.
mcv 15 hours ago [-]
I've been scratching my head a bit lately about what EA seems to have turned into.
Originally, the idea seemed to be simply to spend your money to do the most effective good. Don't spend it on "charities" where most of it ends up in the pockets of their executives, don't spend it on issues that don't really accomplish much, etc. Their initial priorities seemed pretty decent. GiveWell type stuff.
But nowadays it seems to be completely corrupted by all that TESCREAL crap (Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, Longtermism). Most of those make no sense or seem to be utterly irrelevant to the goals of EA. The one that seems to try is Longtermism, but the notion that the needs of non-existant people in a possible distant future we know nothing about, somehow outranks the needs of real people today, is utterly absurd.
I thought that was just a bunch of weirdos or corrupt rich people trying to leverage EA as PR for not actually having to do anything for real people. But it turns out that EA pioneers like Ord and MacAskill are also on board with that nonsense. The 80,000 hours jobs list is now all about AI. The whole thing seems to be just a massive grift with no redeemable value.
Is there still some angle from which EA makes sense? Was it always pure grift? Or did the founders get corrupted by proximity to too many billionaires?
in-silico 15 hours ago [-]
In what ways to you think the TESCREAL arguments are wrong?
mcv 15 hours ago [-]
As I said:
> the notion that the needs of non-existant people in a possible distant future we know nothing about, somehow outranks the needs of real people today, is utterly absurd.
And as far as I can tell, that's one of the most coherent parts of the TESCREAL package. Apparently it also includes goals to transcend mortality or humanity, at which points you've definitely lost touch with any meaningful form of morality.
I don't pretend to understand everything that TESCREAL is about, but that's at least partially because much of it strikes me as utter SciFi bullshit that's completely unhinged from reality. And that's not even getting into some of the deeply racist eugenics stuff I've come across.
If there's any real meaningful value in EA, all the other stuff is distracting from it. Get back to fixing poverty, inequality and animal cruelty. But there seems to be so much billionaire grift involved in it by now, that anything that threatens their elevated position (which by itself is a threat to humanity) is unlikely to find approval with the big money that's now behind it.
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
What EA has turned into is analogous to what the US Government has turned into.
It took 250 years for the US to go from the constitution to ICE detention centers and banned journalists, but it only took EA 15 years to go from 'donating to the poor' to 'sacrificing real present humans for the sake of future theoretical humans'.
mcv 6 hours ago [-]
Good perspective. Lots of good ideas get corruped over time. But EA managed to do it in record time while the founders are still around.
nullc 10 hours ago [-]
All ideas are best in moderation. Danger rests into turning any one perspective into an organizing principle for your life (or worse, for many people's lives).
s1artibartfast 17 hours ago [-]
I'm always curious why effective altruists attract so much sneer and disdain when the topic comes up.
At best they are just people trying to donate money to effective charities like mosquito nets in Africa. At worst, some might be wasting their money on animal welfare or AI safety. This doesn't seem like enough to fuel the kind of backlash I see.
compiler-guy 16 hours ago [-]
I can't speak to anyone else's sneers and disdain, but mine come from all the motivated reasoning surrounding them. One example:
'The Effective Ventures Foundation (EVF), which defines effective altruism as “using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible”, decided £14.9m of its cash would be best spent buying Wytham Abbey, a 15th-century Grade-I listed manor house near Oxford.'
There were a lot of explanations about why that was the most effective use of funds, but every single one reads like motivated reasoning to me.
Examples like this abound.
cowthulhu 16 hours ago [-]
I think it's got two components - first, people don't actually understand the tenants of mainstream EA. For instance, some people think that one of the core principles of EA is "make as much money as possible at any cost", which is incorrect.
Second, EA is a small movement with an above average amount of crazy people (IE someone who does think you should make as much money as possible at any cost), who then basically monopolize the media attention. This then feeds into the first component.
EA is in a fairly bad spot where nobody seems to be really attempting to understand it or meaningfully engage with it's ideas, instead just parroting the same few talking points (SBF anyone?)
fwipsy 15 hours ago [-]
Anytime someone takes any (supposedly) moral action which is not part of the status quo, they are implicitly claiming the moral high ground. There are 3 possible responses:
1. Take no action -- but if they're right, you cede the moral high ground
2. Imitate them -- which also cedes the moral high ground, since they got there first
3. Undermine their claim; prove they're actually acting in self-interest.
I believe this is why so many people love(d) to hate on vegans.
jswelker 12 hours ago [-]
It's especially bad when it comes to parenting.
Me: "I don't let my kids have iPads."
Other parent: "YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME? FUCK YOU!"
carefree-bob 15 hours ago [-]
> Anytime someone takes any (supposedly) moral action which is not part of the status quo, they are implicitly claiming the moral high ground.
I think this is an unhealthy belief. More likely, people don't know what is or is not moral, because their decisions are plagued by self-interest, limited knowledge, and the influence of peer pressure and tradition that may or may not have gotten things right.
So it is more about people taking calculated bets, say on a share price. They don't know for sure if they think the price will go up or down, they are guessing, but not randomly guessing. There is an underlying investment thesis that may or may not be correct.
So a contrarian investor, may be a genius or a fool. Time will tell. Most people, when they see a contrarian investor, decide the prudent approach is "wait and see", because they have their own thesis about a different set of stocks.
Everyone is trying to figure this out as best as they can. To think that you have the moral high ground by holding some niche beliefs is a foolish way of living.
s1artibartfast 13 hours ago [-]
I agree with your statement as advice, but I don't think it is very descriptive of how people are actually behaving.
It doesn't seem like most people are taking the agnostic "wait and see" approach when it comes to judging effective altruists (or vegans).
To accept that someone else might be right on a moral issue also means accepting that you might be morally wrong.
I don't send 10% of my income to charity or eat vegan, but it does seem to me that people feel threatened when they see others doing this
carefree-bob 11 hours ago [-]
It doesn't have to just be "wait and see", although I do believe that all truth is revealed in the fullness of time, but it could just be humility, e.g. X believes Y is the way to go, I don't see why X believes that, and I could discuss this with X or even debate vigorously, but at the end of the day, we don't know who is more moral until much later.
One very interesting thing about the idea of "last judgment" in the gospels is that there are several parables devoted specifically to it, and the thing that unites all of them is that all groups of people are completely surprised at what they are judged by. The good don't know what good they did, and the bad don't know what bad they did. The group that has strong opinions about what good they did end up being completely wrong. The group that is praised for doing good don't even remember doing good.
You don't need to believe the parables, but there is another way to it. I don't know how old you are, but once you are of "mature age", you may well notice that the things you thought were important when you were 20 years younger were much, much less important than what you think of today. And 20 years later, the same holds true as well. So you can view these parables as extrapolations of human ignorance and the increasing recognition of that ignorance with age especially when it comes to moral matters.
Partly because we don't see all ends, since we can't tell the future, so we don't know what ends up in the long run being a good course of action, and partly since our judgments are tainted by self-seeking and a desire for self-elevation. It is not just some people that want to feel better than others. Everyone wants that, whether they admit it or not. That taints all of our moral beliefs.
So in that environment of pervasive ignorance and self-deception, what do you do? You go according to your own conscience, arguing that while you may be completely wrong, at least you are not trying to outsmart yourself. But expect, whether in the last judgment, or as time passes, to radically update your beliefs, especially about what is and is not moral. So you go with your own conscience but don't try to apply your judgment to others.
By the way, the first murder recorded in Genesis, of Cain killing Abel, was basically a beef between vegetarians and meat eaters. God commanded man to eat herbs and not meat -- it is only after Noah that God allows man to eat meat. But Abel gave a meat offering to God, a shelamin offering, or one in which you eat the meat and God gets the fat, and Cain saw that Abel was munching on meat, and then God praised Abel. Cain was absolutely certain that Abel was in the wrong, and that Cain was in the right. And he was absolutely certain that God was wrong for banning meat eating and then praising Abel. That festered and festered until one day Cain murdered Abel, effectively sacrificing Abel like Abel sacrificed the sheep. And then when God came to Cain to ask "Where is your brother?", Cain replied with "Am I my brother's shepherd?" -- the answer being a resounding yes, since he slaughtered Abel like a shepherd slaughtered sheep. This clearly shows that killing an animal is the same kind of thing as killing a man, and yet it also shows that God praises those who eat the meat offering, and also that whenever you judge someone for doing something, you end up guilty not only of the same thing, but the same thing enlarged. By the way, this first murder in Genesis 4 happened immediately after the fall in Genesis 3, which occurred when man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is, he is able to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. And immediately, that judging of good and evil leads to murder because of feelings of being wronged.
These are all hard lessons for how human beings approach morality, that is we use it as a mechanism to lift ourselves above others and to condemn others for wronging us, and we also completely misinterpret it. This is a universal thing, I am not trying to judge one group or another. If your conscience tells you not to eat, then don't eat.
fwipsy 10 hours ago [-]
Aha! I suspected you were religious from your first response, since it seemed to hinge on being granted perfect moral clarity in time. I don't personally believe that, but I agree that moral truth is difficult to find in our lifetimes, and it's well to constantly question and update one's beliefs, as well as respecting and maintaining an open mind towards others.
As an aside, I was raised Christian, and recently I tried re-reading Genesis as an adult atheist. There's a lot of poetic justice. The underlying theme seems to be "People do lots of terrible things, but you shouldn't punish them, because God will." I guess that Iron Age tribal shepherds were a pretty violent bunch and that's what they needed to hear.
cjpearson 16 hours ago [-]
That's how I understand it: a movement encouraging people to donate their wealth to good causes which save and improve lives.
However, there's some who predict an existential future risk such as an AI apocalypse. If that's the case, why save a child's life today when we'll all be killed by AI tomorrow? Critics would call this funding pet projects rather than altruism.
But you can even further down this line of thinking. If you're a billionaire and see yourself as the only hope of saving humanity from extinction, why donate any of your wealth? You should be doing the opposite, gathering as much wealth and power as possible. Taxes and laws that get in your way are impediments to the salvation of humanity.
I'm pretty sure most of the criticism is for folks in the latter groups. I wish there were different words to distinguish them better, because I like the idea of encouraging charity but somehow a handful of billionaires have poisoned the word altruism.
ranger207 10 hours ago [-]
It's a way for the wealthy to feel like they're doing good by collecting money. They tend to twist the tenets to favor "what you're currently doing is good, actually" even if "what you're currently doing" is itself unethical, like modern adtech. The stated goals and principles of EA are one thing; the actual practice of it is another
verdverm 14 hours ago [-]
That's the picture of them they want you to hold, the non-deepfake is different
Marazan 16 hours ago [-]
It's because of the gap in what they say and what they do.
jefftk 15 hours ago [-]
EAs have the lowest distance between what they think is the right thing to do and what they actually do of any group I've met.
(I donate 50%, and quit a high-paying tech job to work at a biosecurity nonprofit)
cgio 13 hours ago [-]
You may do that with honesty and just be a useful front for the heads behind the curtain. In their calculations you are still the value of 32 prawns or something.
s1artibartfast 13 hours ago [-]
What does that mean? What is the real goal of the conspiracy?
cgio 11 hours ago [-]
Any conspiracy has simple goals. Control, power, money sometimes as a means to the first two. It’s not even conspiratorial right now to assess that EA members go for these. Not all of them, but the ones that matter in this discussion.
api 16 hours ago [-]
It’s one of those things that sounds fantastic on the surface. Then you dig.
charcircuit 16 hours ago [-]
In short it is because they have influence. There is a difference between sending $1 to Africa instead of America and sending millions. There is a difference between an AI safety researcher fantasizing about AI hacking everything on the planet and their AI models telling me I can't look for bugs in my code.
watwut 16 hours ago [-]
Cause they produced Dam Bankman Friedman and people like him.
Cause somehow their idea of best altruism ends up amounting to "earn as much money and power with little regard to how, because so that you can use them for good in the future in a very top down way".
Effectively, it is very swlf serving.
Joeboy 16 hours ago [-]
I think a possible explanation is, they support billionaires giving away money. So you get a rare alignment of people who'd rather see poor people die than see support for billionaires, and people who'd rather see poor people die than see billionaires have fewer superyachts. United they're a powerful force.
Edit: Also weird nerds.
gentoo 16 hours ago [-]
> people who'd rather see poor people die than see support for billionaires
Can you give an example of this kind of person?
Joeboy 16 hours ago [-]
It's a fairly common talking point that EA is bad because it's too friendly with billionaires. I admit I would struggle to find an example of somebody openly celebrating preventable deaths of poor people, but the large numbers of lives saved by EA-funded interventions don't generally figure in these people's calculus.
15 hours ago [-]
PoignardAzur 15 hours ago [-]
I'm pleasantly surprised how kind and charitable this article ends up being. I'm really used to shortcuts being used to ridicule EAs ("look, these morons think shrimps are an important problem!"), so I'm happy the article takes the time to present the object-level arguments (e.g. yes, it's kind of fucked up we torture tens of billions of small animals per year in ways that would make most people physically recoil if they had to look at it, just to produce a luxury good. Watch the Dominion documentary!).
I know I'm already late to the party and HN's libertarian techno-optimism means that lots of people have already made up their mind about EAs, but still, I'd like to make my case.
I've mets dozens of EAs in person and gone to a few events with hundreds of them. None of the people I met were billionaires and AFAICT most of them didn't especially hope to become millionaires. A lot of them were broke students, though obviously a lot also had comfortable tech jobs.
What they had in common was that they were the most driven, idealistic people I've ever met. All of them cared about something, whether it was animal welfare, climate change, global poverty or AI x-risk. They talked about these things not the way people talk on the internet, when they're trying to win an argument, they talked about them like they have stakes and making the right decision will impact lives.
Every step of my journey to becoming flexitarian, then vegetarian, then vegan-ish, has been spurred by an effective altruist talking to me about the moral outrage that is factory farming, and that it was something that mattered and that we can and must do something about.
Yes, they're often sexually open, yes, the cults (and all the problems that plague groups dominated by autistic white men) exist, yes SBF exists and Effective Altruism gave him way too much of a platform, yes, they bought a castle that one time, but these things shouldn't be treated as the only things worth knowing about the movement, the same way one shouldn't denounce feminism forever because [insert stupid thing some high-profile feminist did that one time]. No reformist movement looks good when presented through the lens of its detractors.
EA is a group of people that spend a lot of their time encouraging each other to do more, to believe that actions matter and every life has value. They're eager and sincere, they take abstract ideas seriously and consider their consequences even when it's uncomfortable or weird, and that makes them a target of ridicule (because people don't like their conclusions, and because cynical people like to take overly eager people down a notch).
So I'm really happy the Economist refrained from taking those cheap shots throughout. It's a good article.
ChrisMarshallNY 15 hours ago [-]
I don’t have an opinion on EA, and have never run into one, in the wild.
However, what you have described, is pretty much exactly the organization that I've been involved in, my entire adult life.
I won't mention it, here, as we maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and film.
PoignardAzur 15 hours ago [-]
Sure. I don't think EAs are magically unique. A lot of movements (feminists, socialists, churches, unions) produce driven, organized and kind-hearted people.
EAs happen to be the ones I know.
BLKNSLVR 13 hours ago [-]
In my opinion they don't produce them, they attract them, and for different reasons.
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
Fair point. Just take the good and discard the rest.
Churches and religions as a general rule want to 'do good', but also have a variable amount of crazy kinda irremovably attached to them, which is the bit that is generally focused on too.
The dangerous part is where the 'doing good together' part slowly turns into normalizing the crazy part by 'social infection'.
As long as you don't end up being able to rationalize some behavior that, before you joined the group, you'd never have participated in or condoned.
Crazy justifies itself by small degrees.
frumplestlatz 14 hours ago [-]
I grew up in a cult, too. They were very eager and sincere. I'm very familiar with "eager and sincere" hiding incoherent motivated reasoning and savior complexes that give their adherents cover to behave both stupidly and horridly -- with a smile.
I'm not going to ignore the weird sex cults, the arrogance, the bizarre arguments, or the bad actors.
jiraiyasarutobi 16 hours ago [-]
First time hearing the term. I dont know about conquering the world.
dang 16 hours ago [-]
I've unconquered the title above and replaced it with something bland. Hopefully that will reduce the rush to inflammation in the thread.
15 hours ago [-]
Barrin92 17 hours ago [-]
Much of the world will be surprised to hear that they have been conquered by effective altruism. Seriously what kind of spheres does the person live in who wrote that article? I think they need to hire some people who spend less time in online blogs and on twitter and more time idk, traveling to China or India
Revanche1367 14 hours ago [-]
Almost certainly a tech/venture-capitalist bubble like the SF bay area. They really seem to live in a different world from even the rest of California much less the wider US or the world.
grebc 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mejutoco 16 hours ago [-]
Please recommend some worthy publications
grebc 13 hours ago [-]
I find increasingly that written words from organisations are trending worse. I tend to find particular authors are sometimes good writers, and sometimes they have blogs which I have always liked but more & more lately.
My national/public broadcaster/media organisation(ABC, Australia) is doubling down on fiddling all day with headlines & the pictures. They’re not selling any product, they don’t need to follow commercial trends.
I like history podcasts, especially anything by Mike Duncan, and some of the pop culture stuff by the Ringer is ok.
Sorry, I don’t have any good recommendations for commercial publications.
DonHopkins 16 hours ago [-]
Charmin
16 hours ago [-]
cyanydeez 17 hours ago [-]
Just a magical mental gymnastics for someone who got the message that greed is bad, but wanted to continue being greedy.
karim79 17 hours ago [-]
The title alone is comical. "Here are ten reasons to continue to be greedy...".
bawolff 17 hours ago [-]
Meh, they have some beliefs i disagree with, but ultimately they are spending money on things like feeding the hungry.
I feel like there is this weird thing where people will criticize people who do charity work in not quite the right way (from the criticizers perspective), but are totally fine with people who just use their money to buy a yacht.
I'd much rather have people spend their money on feeding the hungry, even imperfectly then spending it on other pursuits.
I sometimes wonder what the critics of EA are doing to eradicate the ills of the world or even their local community. Is it more than what EA is doing? If not, i'd say those in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.
kylestanfield 16 hours ago [-]
This is a motte and bailey fallacy. I don’t think many people take issue with feeding the hungry. However the longtermist sect and their idea that enriching yourself as much as people so you can do more good later leads to the actual controversial actions especially when taken to its logical extremes. And the AI fanaticism got mixed in there somehow.
jefftk 15 hours ago [-]
> their idea that enriching yourself as much as people so you can do more good later
This is a very uncommon idea within EA. There are some people who support it ("patient philanthropy") but almost everyone within EA either thinks you should be working / donating to help people/animals (most "neartermists") or you should be working / donating to help reduce extinction risk (most "longtermists").
bawolff 14 hours ago [-]
Are there examples of these "controversial actions". Are they actions that wouldn't have happened without the ideology of EA. How prominent is it within the movement.
I'm opened to having my mind changed, but i'm going to need more than that.
fragmede 14 hours ago [-]
> Effective Altruism-Linked Group Used Millions Donated By FTX To Buy A Czech Castle
I'm not sure i see how that is really linked to effective alturism as a philosophy. Sounds like person famous for grifting did some grifting, but that happens all the time in normal philanthropy too.
I don't think EA is immune from grifters or people with bad intentions. It is after all a movement made up of humans. I think the question to be answered is does the philosophy encourage it in a way that other philosophies around philanthropy don't.
AnimalMuppet 16 hours ago [-]
> Meh, they have some beliefs i disagree with, but ultimately they are spending money on things like feeding the hungry.
Are they? To what degree are they? And to what degree are they not helping the hungry today, in order to amass more money so that they can in theory help the hungry more tomorrow?
I can respect someone like Bill Gates. He hasn't been perfect, not by a long shot, but he's put real money into really trying to help real problems. What's the track record of the effective altruists? (Genuine question - I haven't researched them enough to know.)
jefftk 15 hours ago [-]
Feeding the hungry in particular is uncommon, but global poverty (usually malaria nets and other specific impactful + neglected interventions) is the largest cause area in EA, and something I've personally donated a lot to.
seu 17 hours ago [-]
probably the best description of EA that I've read so far.
s1artibartfast 17 hours ago [-]
Genuinely curious why you feel that way?
cyanydeez 17 hours ago [-]
First, you can read about Sam Bankman-Fried; then you can say "oh, he's not _real_ effective altrusim...and do your backflips.
s1artibartfast 16 hours ago [-]
But that is one human, and not a very honest one.
Is that the standard you hold everything to?
AnimalMuppet 16 hours ago [-]
Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one. Someone who wears the EA label, and actually does things to help with real problems.
jefftk 15 hours ago [-]
I've been on HN about as long as I've been an EA, over which period I've donated more than half my income. I work at a biosecurity nonprofit, trying to reduce the risk we all die in a bioattack.
AnimalMuppet 13 hours ago [-]
Then, I have some sincere questions. No, wait. First, my sincere compliments, both for your work and your giving.
Now, questions:
In your view (which I will listen to, because you're actually an EA), is the "wait until later to be more effective" actually a part of EA? Or is that a separate thing that calls itself by the same label?
If it's the same thing, it sounds like you don't act that way. Do you not buy the "later" logic? If not, why not?
jefftk 13 hours ago [-]
EA is a bunch of people who have a similar way of looking at how to apply our resources and effort to making the world better, but even within EA there's still a ton of disagreement over what better means and how to go about getting there.
The idea of waiting until later is typically called "patient philanthropy". The argument is something like:
1. People matter equally regardless of when they exist.
2. Money you invest could be far more money in the future.
3. Giving opportunities will be about as good in the future as they are today.
4. Therefore if you save to donate later you can do a lot more good.
This often looks like putting money in a Donor Advised Fund to lock in the "this has to go to charity" while still letting it grow, and then later deciding where to donate it.
It's not a common position within EA, and isn't one I hold (so I may not be fully fair to it). The main objection is to point 3: there are actually a bunch of reasons to expect that money donated today will go further than money donated later. The big one, from my perspective, is that we are increasingly creating more powerful AI systems, and we're close to making ones that are smarter than almost everyone. This is very different from anything people have done before, and could have extremely long term consequences (extinction, loss of human control over the future, locking in values that on reflection aren't great, etc).
AnimalMuppet 13 hours ago [-]
I could see a different argument against 3. Let's say you give some money now that lifts some people out of poverty. Those people don't raise their kids in poverty, which changes their kids' position, which means that their kids don't grow up in poverty, and so on. So money given now can have a compounding effect in peoples' lives, affecting more people in the future than just the people it affects today.
jefftk 12 hours ago [-]
Yes! This sort of compounding effect is also a potential reason to prefer giving sooner. But it is important to be clear-eyed about the extent to which compounding is really happening: while it's a story we all want to believe, there's also substantial potential for regression to the mean.
s1artibartfast 12 hours ago [-]
I hang out with a lot of EA friends and I have never heard anyone advocate for it.
The concept is called "patient phlithoropy", apparently about 1% of EA donations go to such funds.
There is no pope of EA that sets doctrine, so anyone can do and say what they want.
I have heard a similar argument that you dont need to sell everything you own and donate it all, because a steady X% per year is better than a lump sum and then homelessness. Or that it makes sense to spend on a college degree so you can earn and donate more later. Both make sense to me.
That said, basically every philanthropic org makes some degegree of "wait until later to be more effective". The gates foundation or churches dont try to spend every penny they have in the current year.
lanfeust6 12 hours ago [-]
> Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one.
The thousands who donate to charity like Against Malaria Foundation or direct cash transfers, and many who pledge to donate a large percentage of their income?
s1artibartfast 15 hours ago [-]
I'm not really an expert on EA. I just want to understand the public sentiment because it is increasingly part of the political moment, to the point the president is tweeting about it and running a PR campaign against them.
According to AI, the biggest EA charity is GiveWell, which spends about 600 million per year. 95% of the money on low-cost high-impact global health programs like mosquito Nets and vitamins for children.
There is also open philanthropy, which gives about 500 million per year With a wider perspective. Roughly 50, 40 and 10% go to Global Health, Existential Risks, and then Animal Welfare in that order.
That said, I'm not really trying to argue the case. If the simple reason is that people have characterized EA based on SBF, and that's how they think about these things, then that is a complete answer.
SpicyLemonZest 17 hours ago [-]
You might benefit from thinking critically about who and what you consider to be greedy. If you don't, it's easy to be tricked by various kinds of shell games, where certain kinds of work are never considered "greedy" or certain kinds of charity make the donor appear disproportionately generous. One game that's become pretty well known is how many "donations" to well-funded schools are in fact admissions payments for wealthy kids.
rvz 16 hours ago [-]
EA is a dynamic saviour complex cult that is devoid of reality and gave birth to the FTX fraud.
The whole concept of it is a scam.
BLKNSLVR 14 hours ago [-]
It is almost surprising that it survived post-SBF's exposure as a massive (and that undersells it) fraud.
The reason it's not surprising is the size of the money bulwark of the people still behind it.
PunchyHamster 17 hours ago [-]
Calling it "most important movement" is like calling national socialism "most important movement", just because it made history doesn't make it good
doctoboggan 17 hours ago [-]
You are conflating "important" with "good", which I don't think the author was intending.
jebarker 17 hours ago [-]
e.g. climate change will likely be very important in the coming century
holaysuns 16 hours ago [-]
People need to learn to disassociate the 'cultural movement' from the ideology.
Read what Chomsky has to say about postmodernism.
Look at the evolution of 'String Theory'. Thousands of PhDs minted in something that likely has no relevance to anything. String Theory could not have achieved prominence merely as an idea - it only rose to the fore because it was a 'movement' - with all of the supporting accoutrements. It only has an arcane value, not as a leading premise. The 'movement' pushed it to the fore.
Look at Scientology / Dianetics (that one is pretty hard).
'Movements' are almost always about the 'Movement', and the ideology often seems to take a back seat.
The 'Movement' is something almost nominal to rally around, that helps create a 'form' for a loose consensus.
It inspires some people to act as though they are doing something for a 'greater good' (whether they are or not), and for leaders to dereference their apparent authority towards that greater ideal.
Imagine if all of these 'ideas' were just left as 'ideas' or maybe 'ideals' and that's that - and there were no groups, meetups, nobody really publicly 'aligned' with them or signalled their participation.
Then we'd have a better notion of what these ideas really are.
But in reality, these systems are 'social movements', groupings, ways for people to signal their special merit or alignment.
It's social politics. Red v Blue. Bloods v Crips. Insiders v Outsiders. Specials v Normies. Nobility v Plebes. Citizens v Slaves.
It gets problematic when the groups get power, people believe in their own gibberish, people place all of their faith in group leaders even when actions by the group defy the nature of the movement itself.
"We're breaking the rules of finance and stealing from people because 'we're the good guys', right? Everything we do is in the name of ... 'good' ... so we can do pretty much anything". is the story of FTX.
Look at it first through the lens of the social organization, then separately through the lens of ideals.
hardbass 6 hours ago [-]
String theory birthed real and rigorous mathematics and generated amazing results in geometry. Regardless of what its physical status turns out to be, it has already contributed enough.
holaysuns 40 minutes ago [-]
String Theory is the MAGA of Science.
This is almost like saying the Scientologists 'taught some kinds to read'.
String Theory is a borderline cult - a lie, kept alive to keep attention, funding, influence.
Science without the science.
It should be studied as a social failure, not some marginal contributions.
hardbass 20 minutes ago [-]
To compare it to maga or scientology is complete bullshit. Just ask geometers how they felt when string theory people started producing solid result after result in geometry. It is completely irrelevant whether string theory has any significance or meaning as a physical theory, it has completely paid its dues in the realm of mathematics. One of its major figures literally won the Fields medal in math, the only physicist to have won this award. Whatever happens of strings as a physical theory, the mathematics it produced stands completely solid.
Why does The Economist consider this the most important issue this week, in a world of complex problems, to splash its first leader on (and more than one page long too)?
> Actually, if you think real hard about it, we're the good guys
--the bad guys
The economist likes it because it resembles what their target audience tells themselves so they can sleep at night.
This sentence is too short for such a complex topic. Whether you can (or should at all) mix your political projects with your career is an entire debate. That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
I was initially curious about effective altruism ~10 years ago, but fortunately i had enough political background to realize that this is essentially a movement of silicon valley sociopaths virtue-painting their bad behavior and their working for the most evil industries on earth in the name of a hypothetical future greater good that will never materialize because they keep supporting the capitalist system that's destroying our planet. It's like saying you're gonna work for Darth Vader because the pay is good so you'll provide good for the universe; it's entirely fucked up and does not hold any form of scrutiny from actually-rational people with a modest social sciences / political background.
And it is a debate they (or at least the ones around here, I'm in Europe, having turned down each opportunity to relocate to the USA) will encourage you to think about.
For the purposes of "FAQ to sell you on the difference with earn-to-give", when earn-to-give is also a complex topic with an entire debate, the sentence they wrote is an appropriate size of answer, even if I find their writing style to be "preach to the choir" rather than actually saying something that would convince an outsider.
(Regarding un-convincing writing style: look at how caveated that whole quotation is. This is typical nerd writing (and I say that as a nerd), not bold "written in primary colours" language that political, business, and charity slogans use).
> That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
They've definitely got political activities amongst their piles of recommendations, so I don't know what you have in mind here that makes them fail it. (Also, thanks to the way political language is a treadmill, when you say "conservative" I don't know if you mean "small government", "Trumpist", "pre-Trump Republican party", "Chesterton's fence", or something else; US use of the word has always been very different from European use of the term).
Don't get me wrong: I think EA is not particularly good at the "effective" part despite their attempts (and name), but you're not making a strong case here.
Earning money is not the problem. Most of us have had (or still have) morally-questionable jobs to put food on the table. That's a reasonable trade-off until we have a better, more ethical society. But making it a moral argument to work for the most evil corporations on earth to do good just doesn't make sense. At which point do you become the bad guy you're trying to avoid being through effective altruism?
It's not a competition, but it really feels like they're all trying to win that title.
Or instead get brain-wormed into giving all your torment nexus dollars to "ai safety" cult that tells you that you're helping to prevent the endless torture of all sentient minds that could ever exist in the entire universe.
Hubbard proved that you can create an effective cult out of bad science fiction-- perhaps it should be surprising that it took so long for someone to improve on the design...
If you wanna do good in the world, you can't just aim a bunch of money at a goal and expect the good to happen, you gotta get your hands dirty and course correct when your original plan turns out to be more harmful than helpful. I'm sure there are a lot of good intentions in there, but from the outside it's looking like the supposed rationality has been compromised by greed at the expense of the supposed altruism. As expressions of altruism go, EA just doesn't seem very effective.
The claims made there are beyond absurd and based on a remarkable absence of anything resembling reason.
That's echoed by a surprising amount of people here.
But the practice of effective altruism and the problematic influential figures who are vocal effective altruists is what is bringing all of the negative attention.
and your definitions of bad behavior are therefore not post hoc, so let me hear your definitions.
But we don't need to define it to know it when we see it. Here are some examples of bad behavior which is encouraged by the way we currently practice economics:
- Operating generators in violation of local regulation such that the neighborhood around your new data center now has a smattering of new respiratory illnesses is bad behavior. The economic system we've built encouraged that outcome by focusing only on the consent of whatever banker granted the loan and not on the consent of the nearby community (relevant because the loan created the money which then bought the illegal generators). We further encourage abuses of this kind by letting irrational markets determine that it's admirable, because if the stock price went up then surly it must be so, and by doing so we subsequently increase the operator's ability to take out more loans of this kind. People are dying of lung cancer and economic indicators are saying "all systems go."
- Sending weapons to terrorists with the understanding that once they destabilize the regional government, they'll give you a favorable deal re: making off with whatever local resources you're after is bad behavior. That's basically US foreign policy in South America in the 80's, and we provided teams of economists to help draft the new dictators' constitutions to ensure that we could continue to exploit those countries long after.
- Charging $80k for enough Sovaldi to treat a Hepatitis C infection is bad behavior. It's not difficult to synthesize (people have done it in their garages for <$500), and the risk of spreading further infection because you can't afford to treat yourself is high. Society bears a tremendous cost because Gilead has decided that the economics of the situation justify the price they're setting.
Economists tell people that these bad things are unfortunate consequences of a system that for the most part is a good thing. But when they're pressed to support that claim they always do so against a meaningless background, something having to do with barter, as if it's not obvious that if we didn't have a system with this broken design, we wouldn't go back to the stone ages, we'd instead have a different system with a potentially less broken design.
Despite resting on such a feeble value proposition re: the current status quo, economists don't seem at all motivated to explore alternatives either. They appear to be rather happily at work for powerful men who are hurting people, where they manufacture for those men justifications about why the pain is in fact an unavoidable consequence of the laws of physics, and no something that they should feel guilty about.
I realize that, like effective altruists, there are probably a lot of good intentions among economists. It's just hard to look at history and come to any conclusion besides that they're not very good at resisting to attempts to corrupt those intentions.
That much is clear. No one "owns" or "leads" EA, it's not a monolith; people have their own beliefs and co-opt it, including crazies. The only common tenet is in the name.
Notwithstanding that "shrimp welfare" and the like is in the margins, it does not preclude the overwhelmingly anthropocentric charitable giving by most members.
I mean, the most popular writer associated with that world, Scott Alexander, donated his kidney just to help others. Knowing the good people are trying to do, it's unseemly to me for EA not only to be discarded but viciously attacked because of "vibes" and weirdos who associate themselves with it.
You used the term "an excuse" twice; for what, a hidden motive to do harm? I think some types like Bentham's Bulldog are wrong or misguided in some respects, that doesn't mean you can leap to some notion that they want to harm humanity in the most stupid way possible: donating a meagre sum to shrimp welfare.
Effective altruism originates from the intention to rationally approach the obvious question, how to do the most good in the world. That's obviously not a bad thing?
The article here goes on a grotesque witch hunt, claiming baselessly things like "polyamory" was widespread among "the movements" adherents.
You here postulate, Anthropic was a "final" manifestation of that movement. How? Why? Do they practice polyamory there?
The social myth of important social questions not being amenable to rational consideration is a political tool, not scientific truth. The classical literature doesn't help there.
Most people do not believe that everything is measurable unfortunately
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
Not everything is measurable though. There are (pretty unexpected) constraints on practicality, but also logical restrictions people tend to forget about.
As an interesting example in the context here, consider the question what constitutes history. There are many other things with great import you can't really measure the important part of.
Another issue with EA is that it is yet another trendy thing among nerds and techbros that was iterated hundreds of times in philosophy under general debate on consequencialism/utilitarism. Of course nerds and techbros think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, so they don't bother engaging with that debate in honest manner.
Rationality tends to fail spectacularly when basing it on wrong assumptions. Which are subtly made.
It's pretty wild how people denounce the very possibility of approaching that question rationally, while doing so in an obviously irrational way.
Which is especially weird to do in 2026. I mean, I get the salacious clickbait, but seriously, at this point does anyone really give a shit what consenting adults do in their private lives?
I remember when outrage peddler Laura Loomer did a big pearl clutch on X about some other conservative being into consensual non-monagamy, and the collective response from everyone from all political stripes was a giant shrug.
But part of it is also a more general point: Their plan is to build an "AI God" constructed according to their own moral theory before anyone else, and that it will prevent anyone else from creating a competing god-- the absurdity of this plan doesn't prevent the effort from creating terrible harm (e.g. the corporate monopolization of AI, mass surveillance on unimaginable scale, etc). The AI safety faction sees itself as moral guardians of humanity's future-- and it's absolutely relevant that many people would consider them weird and that some would consider them (rightly or wrongly) outright morally repugnant.
You lose your right to have no one else worry about what you do in your private life when you start making plans to take over the world, even if you think it's in everyone's best interest. Every other modern authoritarian dictator also though their actions were in the public's interest.
Perhaps people in your circle are above that. But you don't have to cast your net very wide to find someone who thinks that same sex relationships are an abomination.
> big pearl clutch on X about some other conservative being into consensual non-monagamy, and the collective response from everyone from all political stripes was a giant shrug.
Twitter was not representative of everyone and X is even less so.
Yes, we do this in 2026 as we did for millenia. That's called society. Glad to help you.
To use the movement's own language: At the best EA's are paperclip maximizers. Why is it that in one context people recognize formula driven 'rational' utility maximizing as obviously dangerous and evil, but in another see it as the ultimate expression of good. It's a specious argument to go "my objectives good, clippies bad". It may well be true but the maximizing party never knows their goals are bad!
"Rational 'good' maximizing" is itself problematic, because it disregard the danger inherit in any utility function. The nazi campaign to cleanse their population was motivated and justified in part by the latest in eugenic science.
Absolutely central to the EA centered facets of "ai safety" is imposing controls on people development and use of AI-- or even more broadly on their behavior in order to prevent creation of any AI that doesn't follow their definition of 'good' (which they equate to the literal destruction of the universe). It isn't just crazy, it's evil, and it can be reliably predicted to end in harm at the scale of genocide if it doesn't fizzle on its own.
The weird sex cult crap is there, along with the embezzling, nepotism, and other dramacrap-- but I think these are just a common side effect of grifter driven cults rather than being integral to anything that need concern the public. AI doomerism would still be a dangerous cult even if they were all chaste monks.
It only gets so if you push beyond the model which you used to approximate "good", not so much when you're working at the margins.
When I've looked at what they do, while there are some huge blind spots (like Sam Bankman-Fried), they do also say "don't bother giving money to cause XYZ, they have more than they can spend already, donate skills to them or money somewhere else").
They also don't collectively have one single utility function, their big thing is telling other people how to maximise their own; in this regard, your criticism is essentially "all effective advice is evil".
> The nazi campaign to cleanse their population was motivated and justified in part by the latest in eugenic science.
I'm deeply suspicious of everyone who says "we've solved all the problems with eugenics, this time we can do it right and make everyone healthy!" for much the same reason I care about AI safety: humans are kinda idiots with this sort of power. Too many blind spots about the downsides, even for those involved who are not explicitly power-seeking.
That said, I'm sure some anti-car campaign has said a similar thing as you about Autobahns. It's a terrible argument.
> Absolutely central to the EA centered facets of "ai safety" is imposing controls on people development and use of AI-- or even more broadly on their behavior in order to prevent creation of any AI that doesn't follow their definition of 'good' (which they equate to the literal destruction of the universe). It isn't just crazy, it's evil, and it can be reliably predicted to end in harm at the scale of genocide if it doesn't fizzle on its own.
I think you misunderstand: Their (some of their) definition of 'good' in this context being 'do not destroy the universe' is due to how incredibly bad humanity currently is at aligning AI with literally any human intention. Like, our understanding of AI alignment simply isn't good enough today for us to be able to answer a question like "if you extrapolate current models to arbitrary skill level, do we get something closer to a Warhammer-40k-esque GrimDark future, or closer to Iain M. Bank's Fully Automated Luxury Communism utopia?"
As far as I am concerned? We're headed straight to Fully Automated Luxury Communism utopia. The dumbest part about AI is that nobody is using it for societal critique. If people are already impressed by its coding abilities, they should check out what it can do for organizing people in a way that minimizes the need for public institutions.
I mean I asked the AI how to fund open source software using a financial analogy and it straight up told me. When you fund a non-exclusive good like a publicly available open source software, what you need to sell isn't the code but its continued maintenance and availability and the only way you can accomplish that is by guaranteeing that you will archive and shut down the project the moment the money runs out. Then you sell insurance against the shut down of the project. You don't beg for money, because that creates free-riding. The more secure the funding of the project is, the less incentive there is to fund it by buying the insurance. Hence, your project must always be at the brim of total collapse. The risk of the worst outcome needs to be near certain, and simultaneously never happen, because everyone is buying the insurance.
If you can prove it, you'd make a lot of people sleep better at night.
If you can prove either of those is more likely than a paperclip optimiser, you'd still be doing pretty well.
(Not that a citation from fiction is worth much, but even Iain M. Bank's Culture series had hegemonising swarms).
Edit:
The AI pointed out that it is effectively a protection racket, but then I pointed out that there can be competing protection rackets driving the cost down. You know what EA hates? Competition. For EA to continue to exist, humanity must suffer.
Of anything, let alone your specific claim.
> The AI pointed out that it is effectively a protection racket, but then I pointed out that there can be competing protection rackets driving the cost down. You know what EA hates? Competition. For EA to continue to exist, humanity must suffer.
Likewise this is also not actually shaped like a proof, it's just rhetoric.
Actually, you're assuming their talking points when they talk negatively about AI.
What if AI will not bring about paper clip maximization? What if it will bring about something much worse? Like beating the effective altruists at their own game and putting them out of a job by being a superhuman rational effective altruist? No! That must never happen! AI is dangerous!
While it’s probably something prosaic as “Anthropic pays the most lip service to EA, this makes them look bad” or “Our employees are leaning EA and it’s causing problems, things would be easier if they were too embarrassed to admit they were EA”, I do wonder - the board member who instigated the firing of Sam Altman from OpenAI does happen to be a long-time effective altruist…
Oof, that one hit close to home.
https://paulromer.net/ea-ftx-sbf/
SBF Has a Savior Complex—And Maybe You Should Too. The founder of FTX lives his life by a calculus of altruistic impact.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221110080531/https://www.sequo...
Why did I hire Caroline for Manifund?
Manifund needs talent. Leading AI labs warn about recursive self improvement; poverty and disease remain unsolved; billions of animals suffer hell on earth. I, my team, and many EAs I know, are often burning the midnight candle to address these wrongs. I don’t wish to sideline a pair of capable hands.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49675377
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49682791
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/the-reluctant-...
There is something to be said about how we sometimes fail to account for the effectiveness of ineffective altruism.
If someone's really passionate about putting up healthy living posters and shifting the cost of CPR education from healthcare providers, more power to them! But my guess is that most AHA donors don't know or ask what exactly their donations are accomplishing.
(I have a generally EA view of the world and I don't think the AHA is an especially valuable donation opportunity.)
29% of their expenses go to paying education/training staff and the expenses involved with operating that but about the same amount comes back from their trainings in revenue. And that amount that comes back is actually near equal to all the donations they get.
Another ~31% goes to public health education staff.
~5% goes to operating various community services.
~18% goes to research.
and then overall management is ~8% with fundraising expenses making up the remaining ~9%.
For a group split between running various emergency training and certification programs (ex CPR), general public health awareness and education, advocacy, and research, those are pretty reasonable numbers.
https://www.heart.org/en/about-us/american-heart-association...
https://www.heart.org/en/-/media/Annual-Report/2024-2025-Ann...
It's the EA people who generalize from AHA to make grand ethical claims that lead to absurdity.
We should tax the shit out of them, if only to reduce the unelected power their wealth buys.
Just like we should tax the shit out of the non-EA ultra wealthy.
We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.
And they support raising taxes because it's a good way to signal that you're "for the people" and cheap if you care about power more than money. A billionaire CEO will stay a billionaire if their income tax is 90% and unrealized gains tax same as their portfolios growth, and stay a CEO even if they go broke.
The important part for them is power over other peoples lives because that's exactly what you need if you believe you're a special "rational agent" who is responsible for pushing humanity in the right direction. That power can come from shady think tanks, government jobs or controlling a trillion dollar company.
the more you have, the more you matter
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/10/04/will-maca...
That guy is a scammer who participated in the Alameda / FTX scam: he was SBF's mentor and fled the ship, like a rat, before SBF was sent to jail.
So far and as long as I know the ill-acquired mansion in England by MacAskill with 15 million GBP stolen by SBF hasn't been clawed back yet (but it may: in other fraud cases funds and properties have been clawed back as much as 20 years after the fact).
And he certainly didn't hand the mansion back without being asked: for thieves don't do that.
A despicable human being.
Now I know why he's given a voice in some publications: it's for the same reason SBF was presented as the 2nd coming of Christ before his scam came to light. These people have relations and splurge (corrupt) money on a lot of people.
What's not clear is why he's given a voice on HN.
Feels like shaky justification for the validity of the 'movement'. But I'm suspicious of any belief system once it gets to a group size large enough to create a full-circle-jerk. Especially if many members have enough wealth to insulate themselves against the worries of your average human.
If that's a motivating factor for how they live their life, then they need hospitalization for their own good.
For our first bold conclusion we have determined that all of the world's money should be in the hands of people with big brains who intend to draw bold conclusions about the most effective use of money, without the burden of conventional wisdom.
This concludes the planning phase. There will be an additional planning phase once we've collected all of the money, we promise.
But somewhere along the way it attracted the attention of tech bros, billionaires and AI believers, and the whole thing seems to have gotten corrupted way beyond recognition. I think it started by telling people that instead of becoming a volunteer, they could also become a stock trader and donate all of their income to fund a dozen volunteers. And once you've got that kind of money, well, isn't just donating 10% already pretty good? And then came the AI concerns, which mostly seem to have become a reason to hype up irresponsible AI use, rather than the opposite (note that both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded based on the concerns for the threat AI might pose to humanity), and then the Longtermist idea that the concerns of potentially trillions of humans in the very distant future should outweigh the concerns of the mere billions alive today, lead to basically an excuse not to help people today anymore. Also, all those millionaire and billionaire tech bros are still millionaires and billionaires. Is there any EA adherent who has given away that level of wealth?
So while the poverty and altruism of the early pioneers was extremely inspiring, the current visible public face of EA is exactly the opposite.
Basically EA operates as an insurance system for billionaires who want to gain enough wealth and power to collapse humanity until they need to insurance against the collapse of humanity so that they can keep extracting anyway.
"Sorry I can't it's unethical to give more to you just because you are closer to me, I need to do some excel sheets and maximize my mosquito net donations to africa."
Bluntly, I trust Jesus more than them. And in Luke 16:10, Jesus said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."
It's practically an axiom.
How do you turn a good idea into an existential threat to humanity? Let a like-minded group of very rich people commandeer it for a short while.
I'd wager that it's simply the government wanting absolute power (as it should) and going after misaligned oligarchs.
So, effectively, power struggles in circles beyond our reach.
Arguably a good thing that the government would eventually try to claw back power there, given that in theory, it's democratically elected and all.
That's what is meant by "absolute power"
Mind you, I don't want the effective altruists to have the kind of power they seem to want, either...
Their morality is like musicality of someone that learned how to read sheet music and learned how every note sounds like or even how whole chords sound like, but never heard any music being played. Music is not about computing harmonic formula, and goodness is not about solving utility equation.
‘We have discovered happiness,’ say the Last Men, and they blink.
Originally, the idea seemed to be simply to spend your money to do the most effective good. Don't spend it on "charities" where most of it ends up in the pockets of their executives, don't spend it on issues that don't really accomplish much, etc. Their initial priorities seemed pretty decent. GiveWell type stuff.
But nowadays it seems to be completely corrupted by all that TESCREAL crap (Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, Longtermism). Most of those make no sense or seem to be utterly irrelevant to the goals of EA. The one that seems to try is Longtermism, but the notion that the needs of non-existant people in a possible distant future we know nothing about, somehow outranks the needs of real people today, is utterly absurd.
I thought that was just a bunch of weirdos or corrupt rich people trying to leverage EA as PR for not actually having to do anything for real people. But it turns out that EA pioneers like Ord and MacAskill are also on board with that nonsense. The 80,000 hours jobs list is now all about AI. The whole thing seems to be just a massive grift with no redeemable value.
Is there still some angle from which EA makes sense? Was it always pure grift? Or did the founders get corrupted by proximity to too many billionaires?
> the notion that the needs of non-existant people in a possible distant future we know nothing about, somehow outranks the needs of real people today, is utterly absurd.
And as far as I can tell, that's one of the most coherent parts of the TESCREAL package. Apparently it also includes goals to transcend mortality or humanity, at which points you've definitely lost touch with any meaningful form of morality.
I don't pretend to understand everything that TESCREAL is about, but that's at least partially because much of it strikes me as utter SciFi bullshit that's completely unhinged from reality. And that's not even getting into some of the deeply racist eugenics stuff I've come across.
If there's any real meaningful value in EA, all the other stuff is distracting from it. Get back to fixing poverty, inequality and animal cruelty. But there seems to be so much billionaire grift involved in it by now, that anything that threatens their elevated position (which by itself is a threat to humanity) is unlikely to find approval with the big money that's now behind it.
It took 250 years for the US to go from the constitution to ICE detention centers and banned journalists, but it only took EA 15 years to go from 'donating to the poor' to 'sacrificing real present humans for the sake of future theoretical humans'.
At best they are just people trying to donate money to effective charities like mosquito nets in Africa. At worst, some might be wasting their money on animal welfare or AI safety. This doesn't seem like enough to fuel the kind of backlash I see.
'The Effective Ventures Foundation (EVF), which defines effective altruism as “using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible”, decided £14.9m of its cash would be best spent buying Wytham Abbey, a 15th-century Grade-I listed manor house near Oxford.'
There were a lot of explanations about why that was the most effective use of funds, but every single one reads like motivated reasoning to me.
Examples like this abound.
Second, EA is a small movement with an above average amount of crazy people (IE someone who does think you should make as much money as possible at any cost), who then basically monopolize the media attention. This then feeds into the first component.
EA is in a fairly bad spot where nobody seems to be really attempting to understand it or meaningfully engage with it's ideas, instead just parroting the same few talking points (SBF anyone?)
1. Take no action -- but if they're right, you cede the moral high ground
2. Imitate them -- which also cedes the moral high ground, since they got there first
3. Undermine their claim; prove they're actually acting in self-interest.
I believe this is why so many people love(d) to hate on vegans.
Me: "I don't let my kids have iPads."
Other parent: "YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME? FUCK YOU!"
I think this is an unhealthy belief. More likely, people don't know what is or is not moral, because their decisions are plagued by self-interest, limited knowledge, and the influence of peer pressure and tradition that may or may not have gotten things right.
So it is more about people taking calculated bets, say on a share price. They don't know for sure if they think the price will go up or down, they are guessing, but not randomly guessing. There is an underlying investment thesis that may or may not be correct.
So a contrarian investor, may be a genius or a fool. Time will tell. Most people, when they see a contrarian investor, decide the prudent approach is "wait and see", because they have their own thesis about a different set of stocks.
Everyone is trying to figure this out as best as they can. To think that you have the moral high ground by holding some niche beliefs is a foolish way of living.
It doesn't seem like most people are taking the agnostic "wait and see" approach when it comes to judging effective altruists (or vegans).
To accept that someone else might be right on a moral issue also means accepting that you might be morally wrong.
I don't send 10% of my income to charity or eat vegan, but it does seem to me that people feel threatened when they see others doing this
One very interesting thing about the idea of "last judgment" in the gospels is that there are several parables devoted specifically to it, and the thing that unites all of them is that all groups of people are completely surprised at what they are judged by. The good don't know what good they did, and the bad don't know what bad they did. The group that has strong opinions about what good they did end up being completely wrong. The group that is praised for doing good don't even remember doing good.
You don't need to believe the parables, but there is another way to it. I don't know how old you are, but once you are of "mature age", you may well notice that the things you thought were important when you were 20 years younger were much, much less important than what you think of today. And 20 years later, the same holds true as well. So you can view these parables as extrapolations of human ignorance and the increasing recognition of that ignorance with age especially when it comes to moral matters.
Partly because we don't see all ends, since we can't tell the future, so we don't know what ends up in the long run being a good course of action, and partly since our judgments are tainted by self-seeking and a desire for self-elevation. It is not just some people that want to feel better than others. Everyone wants that, whether they admit it or not. That taints all of our moral beliefs.
So in that environment of pervasive ignorance and self-deception, what do you do? You go according to your own conscience, arguing that while you may be completely wrong, at least you are not trying to outsmart yourself. But expect, whether in the last judgment, or as time passes, to radically update your beliefs, especially about what is and is not moral. So you go with your own conscience but don't try to apply your judgment to others.
By the way, the first murder recorded in Genesis, of Cain killing Abel, was basically a beef between vegetarians and meat eaters. God commanded man to eat herbs and not meat -- it is only after Noah that God allows man to eat meat. But Abel gave a meat offering to God, a shelamin offering, or one in which you eat the meat and God gets the fat, and Cain saw that Abel was munching on meat, and then God praised Abel. Cain was absolutely certain that Abel was in the wrong, and that Cain was in the right. And he was absolutely certain that God was wrong for banning meat eating and then praising Abel. That festered and festered until one day Cain murdered Abel, effectively sacrificing Abel like Abel sacrificed the sheep. And then when God came to Cain to ask "Where is your brother?", Cain replied with "Am I my brother's shepherd?" -- the answer being a resounding yes, since he slaughtered Abel like a shepherd slaughtered sheep. This clearly shows that killing an animal is the same kind of thing as killing a man, and yet it also shows that God praises those who eat the meat offering, and also that whenever you judge someone for doing something, you end up guilty not only of the same thing, but the same thing enlarged. By the way, this first murder in Genesis 4 happened immediately after the fall in Genesis 3, which occurred when man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is, he is able to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. And immediately, that judging of good and evil leads to murder because of feelings of being wronged.
These are all hard lessons for how human beings approach morality, that is we use it as a mechanism to lift ourselves above others and to condemn others for wronging us, and we also completely misinterpret it. This is a universal thing, I am not trying to judge one group or another. If your conscience tells you not to eat, then don't eat.
As an aside, I was raised Christian, and recently I tried re-reading Genesis as an adult atheist. There's a lot of poetic justice. The underlying theme seems to be "People do lots of terrible things, but you shouldn't punish them, because God will." I guess that Iron Age tribal shepherds were a pretty violent bunch and that's what they needed to hear.
However, there's some who predict an existential future risk such as an AI apocalypse. If that's the case, why save a child's life today when we'll all be killed by AI tomorrow? Critics would call this funding pet projects rather than altruism.
But you can even further down this line of thinking. If you're a billionaire and see yourself as the only hope of saving humanity from extinction, why donate any of your wealth? You should be doing the opposite, gathering as much wealth and power as possible. Taxes and laws that get in your way are impediments to the salvation of humanity.
I'm pretty sure most of the criticism is for folks in the latter groups. I wish there were different words to distinguish them better, because I like the idea of encouraging charity but somehow a handful of billionaires have poisoned the word altruism.
(I donate 50%, and quit a high-paying tech job to work at a biosecurity nonprofit)
Cause somehow their idea of best altruism ends up amounting to "earn as much money and power with little regard to how, because so that you can use them for good in the future in a very top down way".
Effectively, it is very swlf serving.
Edit: Also weird nerds.
Can you give an example of this kind of person?
I know I'm already late to the party and HN's libertarian techno-optimism means that lots of people have already made up their mind about EAs, but still, I'd like to make my case.
I've mets dozens of EAs in person and gone to a few events with hundreds of them. None of the people I met were billionaires and AFAICT most of them didn't especially hope to become millionaires. A lot of them were broke students, though obviously a lot also had comfortable tech jobs.
What they had in common was that they were the most driven, idealistic people I've ever met. All of them cared about something, whether it was animal welfare, climate change, global poverty or AI x-risk. They talked about these things not the way people talk on the internet, when they're trying to win an argument, they talked about them like they have stakes and making the right decision will impact lives.
Every step of my journey to becoming flexitarian, then vegetarian, then vegan-ish, has been spurred by an effective altruist talking to me about the moral outrage that is factory farming, and that it was something that mattered and that we can and must do something about.
Yes, they're often sexually open, yes, the cults (and all the problems that plague groups dominated by autistic white men) exist, yes SBF exists and Effective Altruism gave him way too much of a platform, yes, they bought a castle that one time, but these things shouldn't be treated as the only things worth knowing about the movement, the same way one shouldn't denounce feminism forever because [insert stupid thing some high-profile feminist did that one time]. No reformist movement looks good when presented through the lens of its detractors.
EA is a group of people that spend a lot of their time encouraging each other to do more, to believe that actions matter and every life has value. They're eager and sincere, they take abstract ideas seriously and consider their consequences even when it's uncomfortable or weird, and that makes them a target of ridicule (because people don't like their conclusions, and because cynical people like to take overly eager people down a notch).
So I'm really happy the Economist refrained from taking those cheap shots throughout. It's a good article.
However, what you have described, is pretty much exactly the organization that I've been involved in, my entire adult life.
I won't mention it, here, as we maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and film.
EAs happen to be the ones I know.
Churches and religions as a general rule want to 'do good', but also have a variable amount of crazy kinda irremovably attached to them, which is the bit that is generally focused on too.
The dangerous part is where the 'doing good together' part slowly turns into normalizing the crazy part by 'social infection'.
As long as you don't end up being able to rationalize some behavior that, before you joined the group, you'd never have participated in or condoned.
Crazy justifies itself by small degrees.
I'm not going to ignore the weird sex cults, the arrogance, the bizarre arguments, or the bad actors.
My national/public broadcaster/media organisation(ABC, Australia) is doubling down on fiddling all day with headlines & the pictures. They’re not selling any product, they don’t need to follow commercial trends.
https://rss.social/ has been a godsend for finding random articles of interesting content, A LOT than HN these days, especially when you don’t want to index on AI content. https://substack.com/@gurwinder/posts https://jmarriott.substack.com/archive
I like history podcasts, especially anything by Mike Duncan, and some of the pop culture stuff by the Ringer is ok.
Sorry, I don’t have any good recommendations for commercial publications.
I feel like there is this weird thing where people will criticize people who do charity work in not quite the right way (from the criticizers perspective), but are totally fine with people who just use their money to buy a yacht.
I'd much rather have people spend their money on feeding the hungry, even imperfectly then spending it on other pursuits.
I sometimes wonder what the critics of EA are doing to eradicate the ills of the world or even their local community. Is it more than what EA is doing? If not, i'd say those in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.
This is a very uncommon idea within EA. There are some people who support it ("patient philanthropy") but almost everyone within EA either thinks you should be working / donating to help people/animals (most "neartermists") or you should be working / donating to help reduce extinction risk (most "longtermists").
I'm opened to having my mind changed, but i'm going to need more than that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahemerson/2023/02/28/effecti...
(They are now selling said castle.)
I don't think EA is immune from grifters or people with bad intentions. It is after all a movement made up of humans. I think the question to be answered is does the philosophy encourage it in a way that other philosophies around philanthropy don't.
Are they? To what degree are they? And to what degree are they not helping the hungry today, in order to amass more money so that they can in theory help the hungry more tomorrow?
I can respect someone like Bill Gates. He hasn't been perfect, not by a long shot, but he's put real money into really trying to help real problems. What's the track record of the effective altruists? (Genuine question - I haven't researched them enough to know.)
Is that the standard you hold everything to?
Now, questions:
In your view (which I will listen to, because you're actually an EA), is the "wait until later to be more effective" actually a part of EA? Or is that a separate thing that calls itself by the same label?
If it's the same thing, it sounds like you don't act that way. Do you not buy the "later" logic? If not, why not?
The idea of waiting until later is typically called "patient philanthropy". The argument is something like:
1. People matter equally regardless of when they exist.
2. Money you invest could be far more money in the future.
3. Giving opportunities will be about as good in the future as they are today.
4. Therefore if you save to donate later you can do a lot more good.
This often looks like putting money in a Donor Advised Fund to lock in the "this has to go to charity" while still letting it grow, and then later deciding where to donate it.
It's not a common position within EA, and isn't one I hold (so I may not be fully fair to it). The main objection is to point 3: there are actually a bunch of reasons to expect that money donated today will go further than money donated later. The big one, from my perspective, is that we are increasingly creating more powerful AI systems, and we're close to making ones that are smarter than almost everyone. This is very different from anything people have done before, and could have extremely long term consequences (extinction, loss of human control over the future, locking in values that on reflection aren't great, etc).
The concept is called "patient phlithoropy", apparently about 1% of EA donations go to such funds.
There is no pope of EA that sets doctrine, so anyone can do and say what they want.
I have heard a similar argument that you dont need to sell everything you own and donate it all, because a steady X% per year is better than a lump sum and then homelessness. Or that it makes sense to spend on a college degree so you can earn and donate more later. Both make sense to me.
That said, basically every philanthropic org makes some degegree of "wait until later to be more effective". The gates foundation or churches dont try to spend every penny they have in the current year.
The thousands who donate to charity like Against Malaria Foundation or direct cash transfers, and many who pledge to donate a large percentage of their income?
According to AI, the biggest EA charity is GiveWell, which spends about 600 million per year. 95% of the money on low-cost high-impact global health programs like mosquito Nets and vitamins for children.
There is also open philanthropy, which gives about 500 million per year With a wider perspective. Roughly 50, 40 and 10% go to Global Health, Existential Risks, and then Animal Welfare in that order.
That said, I'm not really trying to argue the case. If the simple reason is that people have characterized EA based on SBF, and that's how they think about these things, then that is a complete answer.
The whole concept of it is a scam.
The reason it's not surprising is the size of the money bulwark of the people still behind it.
Read what Chomsky has to say about postmodernism.
Look at the evolution of 'String Theory'. Thousands of PhDs minted in something that likely has no relevance to anything. String Theory could not have achieved prominence merely as an idea - it only rose to the fore because it was a 'movement' - with all of the supporting accoutrements. It only has an arcane value, not as a leading premise. The 'movement' pushed it to the fore.
Look at Scientology / Dianetics (that one is pretty hard).
'Movements' are almost always about the 'Movement', and the ideology often seems to take a back seat.
The 'Movement' is something almost nominal to rally around, that helps create a 'form' for a loose consensus.
It inspires some people to act as though they are doing something for a 'greater good' (whether they are or not), and for leaders to dereference their apparent authority towards that greater ideal.
Imagine if all of these 'ideas' were just left as 'ideas' or maybe 'ideals' and that's that - and there were no groups, meetups, nobody really publicly 'aligned' with them or signalled their participation.
Then we'd have a better notion of what these ideas really are.
But in reality, these systems are 'social movements', groupings, ways for people to signal their special merit or alignment.
It's social politics. Red v Blue. Bloods v Crips. Insiders v Outsiders. Specials v Normies. Nobility v Plebes. Citizens v Slaves.
It gets problematic when the groups get power, people believe in their own gibberish, people place all of their faith in group leaders even when actions by the group defy the nature of the movement itself.
"We're breaking the rules of finance and stealing from people because 'we're the good guys', right? Everything we do is in the name of ... 'good' ... so we can do pretty much anything". is the story of FTX.
Look at it first through the lens of the social organization, then separately through the lens of ideals.
This is almost like saying the Scientologists 'taught some kinds to read'.
String Theory is a borderline cult - a lie, kept alive to keep attention, funding, influence.
Science without the science.
It should be studied as a social failure, not some marginal contributions.