Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Benjamin M.
1 min read 4

34

CommunityCause prioritizationPhilosophyCriticism of effective altruismPhilosophy of effective altruismVirtue ethics
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/open-wallets-empty-hearts

The New Atlantis (American religious conservative magazine about science and ethics) has an article out about Effective Altruism. It endorses some parts of EA, but is critical of EA as a whole. Main points (although the article is more nuanced than this summary can convey):

  • EA charities, at least the global health and development ones, do good
  • EA is closely linked to cultish elements of the rationalist community
  • The "pencil problem": in complex systems, it's hard to centrally plan
  • Emotional appeals are a functioning planning mechanism for the world of charity
  • EA is opposed to emotional appeals
  • EA doesn't include a role for friendship and personal relationships, but it should
  • The "paper towel problem": EA  doesn't include a role for maintaing social norms
  • EAs are more driven by wanting to show off their intellectual firepower than help others
  • EAs don't follow through with their wilder claims

  • He instead recommends a sort of virtue-ethics-ish approach to doing good

    I have no affiliation with the people who produced this article, but came across it and thought that it seemed interesting and was better-informed than many of the other critiques of EA that get discussed on here, although I don't agree with all of his points.

34

0
0
2

Reactions

0
0
2
Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Ben Millwood🔸11
1
0

I agree with the comments that this post is better-informed than many EA critiques. Lots of the factual content is at least roughly correct (although lots of the judgement calls I don't agree with, e.g. how intertwined EA and rationality are in practice).

As a piece of criticism, though, I don't feel moved by it. (edit: to be clear this is not a criticism of making a linkpost here! I think it's good to be aware of this stuff. I just want to be frank about my take on it.)

The article includes a whole series of things that sound superficially (to my imagined EA-unaware reader) significant, but it just drops them in and shows seemingly no interest in following up on them:

  • wait, is it really a cult or what? what would the implications of that be?
  • those rationality workshops sound expensive, is that a scam or something?
  • one of its promoters did a multi-billion dollar fraud? we're just going to move on from that with no further comment?
  • wait why do they have two castles
  • sex redistribution for incels??
  • is it bad that they tried to fire Sam Altman?
  • why are we talking about toilet paper and none of these things

Overall it feels like they had a checklist of points to hit but don't really have much to say about them, instead preferring to remain in a purely abstract critique about the foundation of what it is to be good to another person, which a lot of the other content... doesn't really seem relevant to. At the end it seems decidedly confused about whether contributing to effective altruism is good or bad:

We should celebrate this work, and if more is to come, celebrate it too. But the rationalists err in seeing this all as a useful occasion to atone for our cognitive sins. And the effective altruists fail in urging us to see this as the whole story, or even the main act.

ok, but like, what is the import of that failure? the work is to be celebrated but it doesn't matter that much actually? should we, the virtuous, who consider our fellow person, donate to bednets or what?

Reply
Siobhan_M2
1
0

I had a similar question to yours about what the essay is trying to say about Givewell-style effective altruism. My interpretation, which could be wrong, was that the author is saying that Givewell-style EA is a good thing, but is not a moral obligation. I responded in a blog post (not aimed at EAs, but people who may share the same hesitancies as the author) "How do you know how to save a drowning child across the world?".

Following from this, I think criticisms of effective altruism often end up with a conclusion that is too far in the other direction: the conclusion that we only have moral obligation to people in our immediate circles and thus should focus on parochial charity, a conclusion that does not leave room for moral concern and yes, even obligation,2 for the global rich to people living in poverty far from us.

I don't think any argument that focuses solely on helping within communities that we are already in — communities that are, even in the US alone, highly segregated by income; and are globally even more vastly unequal — adequately addresses the moral ill that is global poverty.

I argue that people who might share the concerns of the author (as I understood them) about EA might want to take the option of donating to direct cash transfers or effective community-based organizations in low- and middle-income countries. 

Reply
Joseph8
3
1

I found this to be one of the better criticisms of EA that I've read. I appreciate that the tone wasn't highly aggressive or strident, and that it mentioned the virtue of Julie Wise/Scott Alexander-type arguments of "let's keep donating money for bednets."

Reply
huw3
0
0

I think this is good. I think it would be valuable for most people here to read a criticism from an uncommon angle, even if you disagree with the author’s argument. Thank you for sharing it here!

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
We’ve written a new report on the threat of AI-enabled coups.  I think this is a very serious risk – comparable in importance to AI takeover but much more neglected.  In fact, AI-enabled coups and AI takeover have pretty similar threat models. To see this, here’s a very basic threat model for AI takeover: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is misaligned and power-seeking 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for itself And now here’s a closely analogous threat model for AI-enabled coups: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is controlled by a small group 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for the small group While the report focuses on the risk that someone seizes power over a country, I think that similar dynamics could allow someone to take over the world. In fact, if someone wanted to take over the world, their best strategy might well be to first stage an AI-enabled coup in the United States (or whichever country leads on superhuman AI), and then go from there to world domination. A single person taking over the world would be really bad. I’ve previously argued that it might even be worse than AI takeover. [1] The concrete threat models for AI-enabled coups that we discuss largely translate like-for-like over to the risk of AI takeover.[2] Similarly, there’s a lot of overlap in the mitigations that help with AI-enabled coups and AI takeover risk — e.g. alignment audits to ensure no human has made AI secretly loyal to them, transparency about AI capabilities, monitoring AI activities for suspicious behaviour, and infosecurity to prevent insiders from tampering with training.  If the world won't slow down AI development based on AI takeover risk (e.g. because there’s isn’t strong evidence for misalignment), then advocating for a slow down based on the risk of AI-enabled coups might be more convincing and achieve many of the same goals.  I really want to encourage readers — especially those at labs or governments — to do something
Relevant opportunities
113
AI Moral Alignment: The Most Important Goal of Our Generation
Ronen Bar
· · 10m read
31
31
18
Developing AI Safety: Bridging the Power-Ethics Gap (Introducing New Concepts)
Ronen Bar
· · 6m read
3
3
73
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
View more