I resonate deeply with your sadness. What helps me stay anchored is identifying EA primarily as a personal commitment and life philosophy rather than merely as a movement. This perspective keeps my dedication resilient, rooted in the core EA value of boundless determination to better the world, regardless of external disruptions or individual mistakes.

 Movements inevitably face setbacks and crises, but the philosophical essence of EA—its unwavering commitment to improving the world—remains solid. The movement serves as a practical tool for amplifying these core values, even if it occasionally falters. 

Controversies offer opportunities to recommit individually and collectively to fundamental EA principles such as transparency, humility, and rigorous inquiry. Rather than depending solely on central figures, these moments encourage broader ownership and individual agency. 

Ultimately, the enduring strength of EA lies not in flawless execution but in the earnest pursuit of doing the most good we can with the resources available. This foundational ideal, characterized by thoughtful compassion and pragmatic action, is deeply worth preserving.

When I was most involved in in-person EA organizing/outreach/activism around 2015 to 2017, it seemed to me at the time that the focus of the movement was something roughly like this:

Global poverty: 80%

Animal welfare: 15%

AI and existential risk: 5%

Now, organizations like 80,000 Hours and individuals like Will MacAskill are saying they’re pivoting to focusing exclusively on AGI. Judging from what I see online, it seems like the focus of the movement is currently something like:

AGI: 95%

Global poverty and animal welfare: 5%

It seems like the movement has really changed. It started as a movement around charity effectiveness in the cause area of global poverty, and now it’s a movement or community devoted to talking about AGI. This is a big change and it has probably alienated a lot of people who formerly felt an affinity for the EA movement, as well as put off people who would have been interested in what the EA movement used to be but who aren’t on board with the current movement’s beliefs about AGI.

I recently wrote about why I don’t believe in the predictions of AGI within 5 years here. For me, at this point, the EA movement has almost completely killed off its credibility. I don’t think there is any way to undo what has been done. The “effective altruism” label is now owned by people who think AGI is coming soon and as the years tick on and it becomes increasingly clear AGI is not coming soon, the term “effective altruism” will be seen by more mainstream parts of the world as even more fringe, weird, and dubious than it is today.

I’m not sure what people who don’t believe in near-term AGI and who want to focus on global poverty and/or animal welfare should do. Maybe there would be value in creating some kind of spin-off term? A term that creates a clear distinction between “effective altruism the movement about AGI” and “a movement that focuses on charity effectiveness in the cause area(s) of global poverty and/or animal welfare”. The benefit of coining and popularizing such a term would be to draw a clear distinction between what EA used to be ten years ago and what EA is now.

Using such a term wouldn’t necessarily require disavowing and distancing yourself or your organization from the EA movement or from self-identified EA organizations. Maybe some people would want to do that (I don’t know), but the primary purpose would just be to clearly differentiate your beliefs and your focus from the people who believe in a relatively imminent Singularity and who treat that as the most important thing in the world to focus on right now.