Since everyone is having fun with ChatGPT this week, I thought I'd see if I could play around and ask it to write a critical post on EA, while also offering solutions. Note that below post was written entirely by ChatGPT and isn't intended to reflect my own views.

"Write a critical post about Effective Altruism, and offer suggestions on how to improve the movement."

Effective Altruism (EA) is a movement that aims to use evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world and then take action based on those findings.

This approach is based on the recognition that our resources, whether they be time, money, or expertise, are limited and that we have a moral obligation to use them in the most effective ways possible. By using data and analysis to identify the interventions that have the greatest impact, EA helps to ensure that our efforts to make the world a better place are not misguided or wasted. This rigorous and evidence-based approach is critical to the success of the movement and sets it apart from many other charitable efforts.

While the goals of EA are admirable and the movement has made significant contributions to global charitable efforts, there are some criticisms and areas for improvement.

One criticism of EA is that it can be overly focused on quantitative metrics, such as cost-per-life-saved, to the exclusion of other important factors. This can lead to a narrow and potentially misguided focus on certain interventions, such as distributing insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent malaria, while ignoring others that may be equally or even more effective but are harder to measure.

Another criticism is that EA can be overly individualistic and neglect the collective action and systemic change needed to address global problems. For example, EA often emphasizes the importance of individual charitable giving and volunteering, but downplays the role of collective action, such as advocacy and policy change, in addressing systemic issues like poverty and inequality.

To improve the movement, EA could benefit from incorporating a more diverse range of perspectives and expertise. This could include engaging more with communities and groups that are directly affected by global problems, as well as incorporating insights from disciplines such as sociology, political science, and ethics.

Additionally, EA could prioritize greater transparency and accountability in its decision-making and operations. This could include being more explicit about the assumptions and evidence behind its recommendations and being more responsive to feedback and criticism.

Overall, while Effective Altruism has made important contributions to global charitable efforts, there are opportunities for the movement to improve and address some of the criticisms that have been levied against it. By incorporating a more diverse range of perspectives and prioritizing transparency and accountability, EA could become an even more effective force for positive change in the world.

That's it!

Curious to know what everyone thinks. Personally, it reads a bit generic and doesn't (to me) offer anything new that I wouldn't have already read or pondered myself in one form or another.  I have been playing around with some nuanced follow up questions that turned out to be much more interesting with its response, but for the purpose of keeping this post brief, I've excluded for now.

Here's a list of follow up questions I asked that you could replicate:

• What other important factors are you referring to?
• Why examples are harder to measure, and how can we improve those?
• What systemic change are you referring to?
• What types of policy changes would benefit EA's specific AI Safety goals?
• What communities and groups would be most open to joining EA?

Personally, I do slightly enjoy the thought of using AI to bolster our movement (and perhaps more ironically, for AI Safety itself)— but whether that's a good idea, or whether we're even there yet, is a question I'm not really qualified to answer.