If you zoom out and think of effective altruism as a movement in favour of charity effectiveness and rigorous evaluations of charity, and in favour of giving more to charity than people typically give, then whether these ideas persist and grow is a different question than whether the term âeffective altruismâ or organizations like the Centre for Effective Altruism fall into decline.
The Gates Foundation, for example, precedes the term âeffective altruismâ and embodies some of the same ideas and a similar intellectual spirit as effective altruism.
GiveWell, somewhat surprisingly, for whatever reason, isnât really associated (as least, it doesnât seem to me like it is) with the effective altruist âbrandâ. Maybe Iâm wrong, but I could see GiveWell continuing to operate and maintain a decent amount of popularity long after a hypothetical decline and fall of things explicitly called âeffective altruismâ.
There is a version of effective altruism we could maybe call âEA exceptionalismâ or âmessianic effective altruismâ, which has existed for a long time (at least 10 years) and has never made sense. This is the view that effective altruism is somehow unlike or apart from all other efforts to help the world, that it is has a unique power to see the truth and solve the worldâs problems, and that in some sense the worldâs fate depends on effective altruism. Thatâs a crazy view and if it dies, good riddance.
We also have to ask ourselves if the effective altruism movement (the movement explicitly calling itself âeffective altruismâ) ever fully made sense or ever had a fully coherent version of what it was or what it was for. Thereâs a weird mix of things in EA â charity effectiveness in the global poverty cause area, veganism, AGI doomsday prophecy, bizarre influences from the ârationalist communityâ, academic moral philosophy, and weird, miscellaneous stuff that defies simple categorization, partly because some of it is undefined and unformed. (What on Earth is âtruthseekingâ, for example? If âlongtermismâ is actually a novel idea, what does it actually tell us we should do differently?)
Maybe thatâs a mix of things that donât need to be together that should come apart again. Maybe this specific convergence of ideas and people and culture existed for a reason or a season, and that time has passed, and thatâs okay.
My advice is to adopt a beginnerâs mind and go back to basics. Does effective altruism, as a movement, still have a reason for existing? If so, what is that reason? If itâs a good enough reason to motivate you, personally, focus on that. Put your efforts into that.
Investing in long-term interventions in global health and global poverty that are expected to pay off over decades is incompatible with the idea that AGI will be created within 10 years and will have transformative effects on the world, greater than the effects of the Industrial Revolution, akin to a centuryâs worth of economic growth and a centuryâs worth of progress in STEM (and adjacent fields) in the subsequent 10 years, and only picking up steam from there. So, the two most important ideas in EA are actually at odds with each other. That doesnât make sense. Why are they sharing a movement?
I donât see what good it does to try to keep these incompatible ideas bound together in the same movement. That might be a deeper reason for EA to struggle going forward than anything to do with FTX.
I really appreciate the value of reevaluating ideas from a beginnerâs mind and doing oneâs best to examine the status quo with as little bias as possible. That said, among the things to be evaluated at present when considering effective altruism include the existence of a community, professional network, funding, and momentum of active work. This all indicates the revealed preference of thousands of people that find motivation in the ideas and from other members. When trying to personally decide if âeffective altruism still has a reason to exist?â one should take into account that it already does exist and provides resources that many people find valuable.
Along with many others, I donât find any incompatibility between work on AI (and other) x-risk and global health, because I know Iâm uncertain about the future. If the probability of TAI within 10 years is, as I believe, somewhere between 20â80% (median 65%), and the probability of my GHWB donations helping people is ~95%, then it makes sense to prioritize both. The wider world understands the value of taking a portfolio approach to investing (e.g. I think a long recession is likely so I have more liquid assets than some recommend, but I still maintain a decent proportion of my worth in standard ETFs, and this is a ânormalâ way to invest). But EA is the only place Iâve found that âtakes doing good under uncertaintyâ seriously enough to consider impact portfolios as a way to maximize good, rather than primarily as a way to ease investorsâ consciences while trying to generate returns.
If you zoom out and think of effective altruism as a movement in favour of charity effectiveness and rigorous evaluations of charity, and in favour of giving more to charity than people typically give, then whether these ideas persist and grow is a different question than whether the term âeffective altruismâ or organizations like the Centre for Effective Altruism fall into decline.
The Gates Foundation, for example, precedes the term âeffective altruismâ and embodies some of the same ideas and a similar intellectual spirit as effective altruism.
GiveWell, somewhat surprisingly, for whatever reason, isnât really associated (as least, it doesnât seem to me like it is) with the effective altruist âbrandâ. Maybe Iâm wrong, but I could see GiveWell continuing to operate and maintain a decent amount of popularity long after a hypothetical decline and fall of things explicitly called âeffective altruismâ.
There is a version of effective altruism we could maybe call âEA exceptionalismâ or âmessianic effective altruismâ, which has existed for a long time (at least 10 years) and has never made sense. This is the view that effective altruism is somehow unlike or apart from all other efforts to help the world, that it is has a unique power to see the truth and solve the worldâs problems, and that in some sense the worldâs fate depends on effective altruism. Thatâs a crazy view and if it dies, good riddance.
We also have to ask ourselves if the effective altruism movement (the movement explicitly calling itself âeffective altruismâ) ever fully made sense or ever had a fully coherent version of what it was or what it was for. Thereâs a weird mix of things in EA â charity effectiveness in the global poverty cause area, veganism, AGI doomsday prophecy, bizarre influences from the ârationalist communityâ, academic moral philosophy, and weird, miscellaneous stuff that defies simple categorization, partly because some of it is undefined and unformed. (What on Earth is âtruthseekingâ, for example? If âlongtermismâ is actually a novel idea, what does it actually tell us we should do differently?)
Maybe thatâs a mix of things that donât need to be together that should come apart again. Maybe this specific convergence of ideas and people and culture existed for a reason or a season, and that time has passed, and thatâs okay.
My advice is to adopt a beginnerâs mind and go back to basics. Does effective altruism, as a movement, still have a reason for existing? If so, what is that reason? If itâs a good enough reason to motivate you, personally, focus on that. Put your efforts into that.
Investing in long-term interventions in global health and global poverty that are expected to pay off over decades is incompatible with the idea that AGI will be created within 10 years and will have transformative effects on the world, greater than the effects of the Industrial Revolution, akin to a centuryâs worth of economic growth and a centuryâs worth of progress in STEM (and adjacent fields) in the subsequent 10 years, and only picking up steam from there. So, the two most important ideas in EA are actually at odds with each other. That doesnât make sense. Why are they sharing a movement?
I donât see what good it does to try to keep these incompatible ideas bound together in the same movement. That might be a deeper reason for EA to struggle going forward than anything to do with FTX.
I really appreciate the value of reevaluating ideas from a beginnerâs mind and doing oneâs best to examine the status quo with as little bias as possible. That said, among the things to be evaluated at present when considering effective altruism include the existence of a community, professional network, funding, and momentum of active work. This all indicates the revealed preference of thousands of people that find motivation in the ideas and from other members. When trying to personally decide if âeffective altruism still has a reason to exist?â one should take into account that it already does exist and provides resources that many people find valuable.
Along with many others, I donât find any incompatibility between work on AI (and other) x-risk and global health, because I know Iâm uncertain about the future. If the probability of TAI within 10 years is, as I believe, somewhere between 20â80% (median 65%), and the probability of my GHWB donations helping people is ~95%, then it makes sense to prioritize both. The wider world understands the value of taking a portfolio approach to investing (e.g. I think a long recession is likely so I have more liquid assets than some recommend, but I still maintain a decent proportion of my worth in standard ETFs, and this is a ânormalâ way to invest). But EA is the only place Iâve found that âtakes doing good under uncertaintyâ seriously enough to consider impact portfolios as a way to maximize good, rather than primarily as a way to ease investorsâ consciences while trying to generate returns.