The post uses hyperlink citations. When a word or phrase is hyperlinked, thatās a citation. You can open the links and see the evidence for yourself.
For example, I cited this comment from Oliver Habryka, who worked for the Centre for Effective Altruism during the 2010s:
I will again remind people that Leverage at some point had approximately succeeded at a corporate takeover of CEA, placing both the CEO and their second-in-command in the organization. They really were not very peripheral to EA, they were just covert about it.
I cited Zoe Curziās account of her time at Leverage Research, which supports its characterization as a cult. I also cited the Centre for Effective Altruismās webpage which documents some of its historical relationship with Leverage Research, and notes that Leverage Research organized the EA Summit conferences and the Pareto Fellowship. An additional citation in the post is an EA Forum comment (with a reply corroborating it) that describes cult-like behaviour during the interview process for the Pareto Fellowship.
Iāve actually never heard anyone in EA either a) deny that Leverage Research is a cult or b) deny that it was deeply involved in EA and the CEA, although maybe some people do deny one or both of those things. I donāt necessarily have my finger on the pulse.
By in EAās orbit, I mean, e.g., that if Stop AIās co-founder, Sam Kirchner, had committed a mass shooting at OpenAI (like he said he wanted to do) some of the Stop AI money ā which the co-founder wanted to use to buy high-powered weapons and ammo, but was prevented from doing by other people at Stop AI ā that bought those guns and those bullets that massacred people in the OpenAI offices might have been, in part, donated by people in the EA community who thought they were donating to an EA-aligned organization in an EA cause area (AI safety).
A 2024 GoFundMe fundraiser by Stop AI raised $9,111. Among the publicly listed donors is Stijn Bruers, who donated $578. His LinkedIn says he was the president of Effective Altruism Belgium for 8 years. Stijn Bruers has also been on the EA Forum since 2015 and has 1075 karma. So, we can confirm that Stop AI has been, in some part, funded by donations from people in the EA community.
A day after OpenAIās offices were locked down in response to the threat from the Stop AI co-founder, a post on the EA Forum debated whether to donate to Stop AI. It ultimately decided against, but not for the reason that Stop AI is likely to be too extremist or might end up killing people. Just that the evidence for the efficacy of its tactics is not strong enough. (I assume this post was written and published before the author heard the news about Stop AI.)
More evidence about Stop AIās connection to EA: another Stop AI member, Remmelt Ellen, has posted 86 times on the EA Forum since 2017, commented 280 times, and has 1439 karma. According to his LinkedIn, he co-founded Effective Altruism Netherlands in 2017. His EA Forum profile and his LinkedIn also say heās had a major role at an EA project called AI Safety Camp, which has in part been funded by Effective Altruism Funds and the FTX Future Fund. Apparently one of Remmelt Ellenās roles at AI Safety Camp has been to work on āStop/āPause AI projectsā, but I donāt know what connection (if any) that has with the organization Stop AI (with which he is involved). Stop AI is a splinter group off of PauseAI, which has a more prominent place in the EA community and on the EA Forum.
Is this enough evidence to establish a meaningful connection between EA and Stop AI? I think so, but you may disagree.
The Zizians did not come from EA directly, but they came from the LessWrong community. There is so much overlap between EA and the LessWrong community these days that the distinction between the two is porous. The lead sentence of the Wikipedia article on the Zizians describes them like this:
The Zizians are an informal group of rationalists allegedly involved in six violent deaths in the United States, three in 2022 and three in 2025.
The Wikipedia article on the rationalist community (or LessWrong community) describes the Zizians as a āsplinter groupā off of the rationalist community.
Whether thatās āin EAās orbitā or what the phrase āin EAās orbitā means is something you can feel free to disagree with me on. Would it have been better if I said āadjacent to EAā or āonly one or two degrees separated from EAā? The core point is that Leverage Research was not just a totally random, out-of-the-blue fluke. New groups with extreme views and violent behaviours are still not that far separated from EA. This is not normal and doesnāt typically happen.
Note (2026-06-05 at 00:56 UTC): I made substantial edits to this comment after posting. Use the Wayback Machine to see version history.
Where youāre making controversial arguments, you need to explain the evidence behind them in the text. Citations should be only for the extra diligent reader, itās not fair to expect the reader to look into them.
Many of the citations like the one you mentioned now arenāt sufficient. From what Iāve seen, youāve provided evidence that Leverage did cult-like things, and was involved in organizing EA conferences for a time and there was some overlap with staff. Itās a big jump to then say that EA was literally taken over by a cult and that this effect continues until today. Referring to one comment about the interview process for one fellowship is just so clearly not sufficient to color EA as a wholeānot even for that fellowship, of which there are many!
Control AI is related to EA, clearly. This does not seem analagous to the Bay Area cults you referred to, not even close.
The general point is that a post like this cannot be made as a quick take, but needs to be argued more thoroughly with much clearer evidence. As it is, it feels like name-calling.
Iām going on holiday now so I wonāt be able to engage further, but I think the above is quite clear.
Someone should write a separate deep-dive post about Leverage Research and its infiltration of EA. (Although youād be able to get a lot the same information just by reading the sources I cited.) A lot of people in EA are unaware of this story, but itās important. Itās not exactly super secret or hidden ā there seems to be general agreement that Leverage Research is a cult and the Centre for Effective Altruism describes its history with Leverage Research on its website under its āMistakes weāve madeā page ā yet people in EA donāt talk about it.
Maybe you could investigate the topic for yourself and write a deep dive post on it. Maybe someone else could.
The key thing is for people in EA to understand the truth about what happened. And to learn whatever lessons they think they should learn from that.
Iām a bit numb to procedural or formalistic critiques at this point because they always seem to just end up being another way to express substantive disagreement. Itās not like the EA community actually follows the writing and sourcing norms youāre advocating here.
The important thing is the substantive questions:
Is Leverage Research a cult?
Did it take over the Centre for Effective Altruism?
Did it organize the EA Summits and the Pareto Fellowship? Did it play an important role in organizing the first EA Globals?
If so, how could the EA movement, particularly the core international leadership, let this happen?
If so, what might be the broader ramifications of this?
What (if anything) is there to learn from this?
Similarly:
Are there multiple cults (or cult-like groups) that have emerged from or been associated with the LessWrong community (rationalist community)?
If so, why?
Is the threat of a Stop AI co-founder to commit a mass shooting a concern for EA?
If so, what could EA do in response? For instance, what could EA do to discourage extremist beliefs and behaviour, particularly violent behaviour?
Does any of this point to deeper concerns with EA? Is it just a string of bad luck, or is there something more here?
If itās not just bad luck, what could be done better in the future?
Just jumping in to say I know both Stijn and Remmelt, so can confirm theyāve been heavily involved in EA (Stijn still is, Remmelt Iām not so sure, but he definitely co-founded EA Netherlands ā I last spoke with him in 2024).
From what I know, Remmelt was (is?) heavily involved in StopAI.
I donāt want to speak for them but Iām pretty sure theyād both strongly oppose violent acts. Remmelt did so on Twitter here.
Iām not endorsing the rest of your claims in the post, just wanted to corroborate this specific part.
I assume everyone who has donated to Stop AI, supported it, or been involved was shocked and horrified by Sam Kirchnerās threats to murder people. I canāt imagine anyone supported that.
Nothing I said was intended to imply that anyone who has supported Stop AI supported Sam Kirchnerās threats. It was just to establish that there is a meaningful connection between Stop AI and EA ā that Stop AI is āin EAās orbitā.
I donāt believe Stop AI expelled Sam Kirchner. I think he resigned. After Sam Kirchner threatened to commit a mass shooting at OpenAI, a few people on the EA Forum expressed concern about what Stop AI said about it.
The post uses hyperlink citations. When a word or phrase is hyperlinked, thatās a citation. You can open the links and see the evidence for yourself.
For example, I cited this comment from Oliver Habryka, who worked for the Centre for Effective Altruism during the 2010s:
I cited Zoe Curziās account of her time at Leverage Research, which supports its characterization as a cult. I also cited the Centre for Effective Altruismās webpage which documents some of its historical relationship with Leverage Research, and notes that Leverage Research organized the EA Summit conferences and the Pareto Fellowship. An additional citation in the post is an EA Forum comment (with a reply corroborating it) that describes cult-like behaviour during the interview process for the Pareto Fellowship.
Iāve actually never heard anyone in EA either a) deny that Leverage Research is a cult or b) deny that it was deeply involved in EA and the CEA, although maybe some people do deny one or both of those things. I donāt necessarily have my finger on the pulse.
By in EAās orbit, I mean, e.g., that if Stop AIās co-founder, Sam Kirchner, had committed a mass shooting at OpenAI (like he said he wanted to do) some of the Stop AI money ā which the co-founder wanted to use to buy high-powered weapons and ammo, but was prevented from doing by other people at Stop AI ā that bought those guns and those bullets that massacred people in the OpenAI offices might have been, in part, donated by people in the EA community who thought they were donating to an EA-aligned organization in an EA cause area (AI safety).
A 2024 GoFundMe fundraiser by Stop AI raised $9,111. Among the publicly listed donors is Stijn Bruers, who donated $578. His LinkedIn says he was the president of Effective Altruism Belgium for 8 years. Stijn Bruers has also been on the EA Forum since 2015 and has 1075 karma. So, we can confirm that Stop AI has been, in some part, funded by donations from people in the EA community.
A day after OpenAIās offices were locked down in response to the threat from the Stop AI co-founder, a post on the EA Forum debated whether to donate to Stop AI. It ultimately decided against, but not for the reason that Stop AI is likely to be too extremist or might end up killing people. Just that the evidence for the efficacy of its tactics is not strong enough. (I assume this post was written and published before the author heard the news about Stop AI.)
More evidence about Stop AIās connection to EA: another Stop AI member, Remmelt Ellen, has posted 86 times on the EA Forum since 2017, commented 280 times, and has 1439 karma. According to his LinkedIn, he co-founded Effective Altruism Netherlands in 2017. His EA Forum profile and his LinkedIn also say heās had a major role at an EA project called AI Safety Camp, which has in part been funded by Effective Altruism Funds and the FTX Future Fund. Apparently one of Remmelt Ellenās roles at AI Safety Camp has been to work on āStop/āPause AI projectsā, but I donāt know what connection (if any) that has with the organization Stop AI (with which he is involved). Stop AI is a splinter group off of PauseAI, which has a more prominent place in the EA community and on the EA Forum.
Hereās a positive EA Forum comment about Stop AI from Greg Colbourn. Greg Colbourn created the EA Hotel. Heās been on the EA Forum since 2014 and has 5972 karma. Greg Colbourn has also made a number of positive tweets about Stop AI: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4.
Is this enough evidence to establish a meaningful connection between EA and Stop AI? I think so, but you may disagree.
The Zizians did not come from EA directly, but they came from the LessWrong community. There is so much overlap between EA and the LessWrong community these days that the distinction between the two is porous. The lead sentence of the Wikipedia article on the Zizians describes them like this:
The Wikipedia article on the rationalist community (or LessWrong community) describes the Zizians as a āsplinter groupā off of the rationalist community.
Whether thatās āin EAās orbitā or what the phrase āin EAās orbitā means is something you can feel free to disagree with me on. Would it have been better if I said āadjacent to EAā or āonly one or two degrees separated from EAā? The core point is that Leverage Research was not just a totally random, out-of-the-blue fluke. New groups with extreme views and violent behaviours are still not that far separated from EA. This is not normal and doesnāt typically happen.
Note (2026-06-05 at 00:56 UTC): I made substantial edits to this comment after posting. Use the Wayback Machine to see version history.
Where youāre making controversial arguments, you need to explain the evidence behind them in the text. Citations should be only for the extra diligent reader, itās not fair to expect the reader to look into them.
Many of the citations like the one you mentioned now arenāt sufficient. From what Iāve seen, youāve provided evidence that Leverage did cult-like things, and was involved in organizing EA conferences for a time and there was some overlap with staff. Itās a big jump to then say that EA was literally taken over by a cult and that this effect continues until today. Referring to one comment about the interview process for one fellowship is just so clearly not sufficient to color EA as a wholeānot even for that fellowship, of which there are many!
Control AI is related to EA, clearly. This does not seem analagous to the Bay Area cults you referred to, not even close.
The general point is that a post like this cannot be made as a quick take, but needs to be argued more thoroughly with much clearer evidence. As it is, it feels like name-calling.
Iām going on holiday now so I wonāt be able to engage further, but I think the above is quite clear.
Someone should write a separate deep-dive post about Leverage Research and its infiltration of EA. (Although youād be able to get a lot the same information just by reading the sources I cited.) A lot of people in EA are unaware of this story, but itās important. Itās not exactly super secret or hidden ā there seems to be general agreement that Leverage Research is a cult and the Centre for Effective Altruism describes its history with Leverage Research on its website under its āMistakes weāve madeā page ā yet people in EA donāt talk about it.
Maybe you could investigate the topic for yourself and write a deep dive post on it. Maybe someone else could.
The key thing is for people in EA to understand the truth about what happened. And to learn whatever lessons they think they should learn from that.
Iām a bit numb to procedural or formalistic critiques at this point because they always seem to just end up being another way to express substantive disagreement. Itās not like the EA community actually follows the writing and sourcing norms youāre advocating here.
The important thing is the substantive questions:
Is Leverage Research a cult?
Did it take over the Centre for Effective Altruism?
Did it organize the EA Summits and the Pareto Fellowship? Did it play an important role in organizing the first EA Globals?
If so, how could the EA movement, particularly the core international leadership, let this happen?
If so, what might be the broader ramifications of this?
What (if anything) is there to learn from this?
Similarly:
Are there multiple cults (or cult-like groups) that have emerged from or been associated with the LessWrong community (rationalist community)?
If so, why?
Is the threat of a Stop AI co-founder to commit a mass shooting a concern for EA?
If so, what could EA do in response? For instance, what could EA do to discourage extremist beliefs and behaviour, particularly violent behaviour?
Does any of this point to deeper concerns with EA? Is it just a string of bad luck, or is there something more here?
If itās not just bad luck, what could be done better in the future?
Just jumping in to say I know both Stijn and Remmelt, so can confirm theyāve been heavily involved in EA (Stijn still is, Remmelt Iām not so sure, but he definitely co-founded EA Netherlands ā I last spoke with him in 2024).
From what I know, Remmelt was (is?) heavily involved in StopAI.
I donāt want to speak for them but Iām pretty sure theyād both strongly oppose violent acts. Remmelt did so on Twitter here.
Iām not endorsing the rest of your claims in the post, just wanted to corroborate this specific part.
Thanks.
I assume everyone who has donated to Stop AI, supported it, or been involved was shocked and horrified by Sam Kirchnerās threats to murder people. I canāt imagine anyone supported that.
Nothing I said was intended to imply that anyone who has supported Stop AI supported Sam Kirchnerās threats. It was just to establish that there is a meaningful connection between Stop AI and EA ā that Stop AI is āin EAās orbitā.
FWIW my bio on X now reads: āEx-EA (left over EAās anti-Pause, pro-Anthropic stance).ā
And itās pretty clear that Stop AI are committed to non-violence given they expelled Kirchner after he started talking about it!
(And here is something positive that is happening with Stop AI now (and could be really impactful).)
I donāt believe Stop AI expelled Sam Kirchner. I think he resigned. After Sam Kirchner threatened to commit a mass shooting at OpenAI, a few people on the EA Forum expressed concern about what Stop AI said about it.
They say in their announcement (already linked) that they expelled him. What makes you think he resigned?