Much has been said about SBF having been EA’s biggest blunder. This was an error of commission, meaning it resulted from certain actions. But as seasoned investors will tell you: errors of omission, which result from a lack of action, can be far more consequential. For those who look, there’s a glaring divergence in the choices of Dustin Moskovitz and Mark Zuckerberg after each became multi-billionaires. Among the co-founders of Facebook, Moskovitz seems to have been one of Zuckerberg's closest friends, if not the closest. This video shows how Moskovitz left Facebook on good terms and that the two seemed to have had a great deal of respect for each other. Despite the widespread criticism of Meta in the past several years, Moskovitz recently defended Meta and Zuckerberg in an interview without equivocation.
After leaving Facebook, Moskovitz chose the road less traveled. He went on to be the youngest person to sign the Giving Pledge and, as most of us know, the largest financial backer of EA causes. Far more unusual – and admirable in my eyes – is his resistance to indulge that he’s paired with his altruistic ambitions. As of 2012, he not only flew commercial but did so in economy seating. I have no way of knowing whether his personal spending is still so restrained. But the relatively low profile he’s kept is indirect evidence that he has. Despite his wealth and influence, very few people would recognize Moskovitz in person; and those who do are likely not the type who'd pester him. This makes it easier for him to lead a more normal life. My assumption is that his lifestyle is still exceptionally modest relative to others in his position.
If his actions have a message, it’s that the ultra-wealthy should donate nearly all of their resources and take great care to do so effectively. Moskovitz believes himself to have benefited from incredible luck (both of the conventional kind and moral luck). At least partly as a result, he has a genuine desire to do the most good for others with his fortune. In his words:
I'm very fond of this quote from Louis C.K. (comedian) below and generally view the world through this lens: “I never viewed money as being my money, I always saw it as The money. It's a resource. If it pools up around me then it needs to be flushed back out into the system.” In other words, Cari and I are stewards of this capital. It's pooled up around us right now, but it belongs to the world.
Zuckerberg must be aware of Moskovitz’s worldview; it’d surprise me somewhat if Moskovitz had never gone out of his way to attempt to persuade Zuckerberg of it. I'd certainly be surprised if the two hadn’t had at least a couple of deep conversations about morality and altruism. But Moskovitz does not strike me as someone who would be at all aggressive in his approach to convincing others. This feels like a natural place to disclaim that I suspect he would be uncomfortable on some level with parts of what I’ve already said and much of what I go on to say.
Despite Moskovitz’s example and (what I imagine to have been) his efforts to persuade, Zuckerberg has more or less shrugged at altruism. He does not appear particularly motivated or strategic. I should mention here that I’ll sometimes write “Zuckerberg” when referring to actions that his wife, Priscilla Chan, is also responsible for – perhaps even more so given she seems more involved in their philanthropic activity. My main reason for doing so is that my focus is on Moskovitz’s influence (or lack thereof). And I don’t know anything about Chan and Moskovitz’s relationship. Also, because she kept her maiden name, it’s simpler syntax-wise.
From what I can tell, the share of Zuckerberg’s wealth that he has parted with philanthropically is about average for the Forbes 400 richest people, despite him being 3rd on the list. I should note that he, too, has signed the Giving Pledge and at one point announced he’d give away ~99% of his wealth. Although he did so through an LLC, which is unusual and led many to question his motives and the ultimate result of this commitment. For now, my take is that Zuckerberg is lukewarm on altruism.
If hands-on philanthropy is not of interest – but he does care about maximizing the benefit of his fortune – Zuckerberg could have followed in the footsteps of Warren Buffet. That is, he could have simply given large sums to existing organizations with an exceptional track record, like the Gates Foundation, GiveDirectly, and GiveWell selected orgs. Instead, he and Chan founded the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). According to their website, CZI uses a ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion lens’ and works to:
- support the science and technology that will make it possible to cure, prevent, or manage all diseases
- ensure that every student – not just a lucky few – can get an education that’s tailored to their individual needs and supports every aspect of their development
- support work to create greater opportunity for communities in the Bay Area and across California
There is virtually no sign that Moskovitz’s worldview has rubbed off on CZI or that their cause selection was deeply thought-through independently. And Zuckerberg seems to be at best moderately convinced of EA causes, e.g. biosecurity and global hunger. Further, he’s flying in the face of Moskovitz’s emphasis on issues like AI risk and animal welfare.
So what is going on here?
As a general matter, I see a few reasons to explain why those who are in an exceptionally influential position fall far short of their impact potential (by giving relatively little or not giving strategically):
- Greed or self-absorption and/or lack of motivation
- Ignorance or skepticism: I’m not aware of compelling reasons to give; no one around me is doing it; or I am distrustful about how my donations will actually get used
- Worldview difference: I just fundamentally disagree about how the world works or should work (e.g. Oscar Wilde vs. Pope Francis)
In the case of giving to certain causes, like x-risk, there is another factor:
- Risk aversion: It’s better to take a 95% chance at doing Y amount of good than a 1% chance of doing 1,000 x Y amount of good.
Note: There aren’t always clear dividing lines between these categories. They’re not mutually exclusive and can interact in complex ways. (This could be a separate post if people are interested. Or if someone has already fleshed this out, please share it!)
I think it’s safe to say that ignorance is not the reason for Zuckerberg’s lack of altruistic ambition. His friendship with Moskovitz alone is enough to convince me of this. I also find it hard to believe that risk aversion is the issue. The man turned down a $1 billion offer for Facebook at a time when everyone around him thought that taking the offer was a no-brainer. More recently, he continued to invest many billions into VR and AR research while shareholders were in revolt and Meta’s stock collapse by 80%.
There was little evidence of self-indulgence being the explanation prior to 2020. That’s when he started on a spending spree that included a mega yacht, an upgraded private jet, and massive land purchases in Hawaii and mysterious construction projects — and totaled around $600 million over a few years. While Moskovitz is putting his resources towards avoiding civilization-ending catastrophes for the benefit of humanity as a whole, Zuckerberg is spending millions to build a personal apocalypse bunker. Anyway, in his earlier years, I see no reason to think that Zuckerberg held back philanthropically because of his personal lavishness.
I also believe worldview differences are at play here. He seems sincerely skeptical that AI could become capable of disempowering humanity. But then again, he evidently seems to think that some apocalypse scenario is worth taking seriously (unless the bunker is just for funsies). Anyway, unlike early Facebook investor and former board member Peter Thiel – who has shared his heterodox beliefs in great detail – Zuckerberg has not given much insight into his deeply-held beliefs. I’ve listened to a few interviews, in which he’s explained his overarching motivation in life by saying things like ‘I just want to build cool things’. He certainly has wide-ranging interests, including history and language. But he’s consistently come across as more or less content with the way the world is or skeptical that anything other than technology can improve the human condition. Further, his recent commitment to political and moral abstinence (both leading up to and after the 2024 election) suggests that he squarely rejects the way Moskovitz sees the world.
To be clear, I certainly did not expect Zuckerberg to simply copy and paste from any particular person’s worldview and/or altruistic approach. (Although, again, this is essentially what Warren Buffet did for many years with Bill Gates.) Still, I do find the extent to which Zuckerberg veered from Moskovitz to be puzzling and I assumed someone would eventually shed light on this. Yet this mystery remains more or less unremarked upon, as far as I can tell. So a large part of my motivation for writing this is sheer curiosity. If others have pondered this as well, I’m very interested in hearing your thoughts.
I do wonder if there are lessons to learn here, though. One that stands out is that reason and argumentation alone are far too unreliable as both a direct and indirect way to get people bought into EA. To reiterate the gist of my main argument so far: an intelligent, thoughtful person was not perceptibly moved by the reasons provided by his trusted friend to do an epic amount of good with his vast resources. This does not bode well for the standard intellectualized EA approach. If we look beyond reason, there are two categories of emotional motivators at our disposal.
The first is negative emotion. Although the soft, non-judgemental approach that EA has taken was a good instinct and may have been optimal, whether it remains so is something we should question. In addition to its failure to sway Zuckerberg and others like him, there is evidence for the efficacy of an aggressive approach. The thought of following their example in any sense – no matter how narrow – is off-putting to me and most reading this. But let’s face it: the obliteration of diplomacy and even decency on the opposite side of the spectrum from the likes of President Trump and Elon Musk has not backfired in the way most expected. Some would argue that their forceful and unfiltered brand is a feature not a bug. I am not suggesting we dispense with decency, and I have many reasons to doubt that aggressiveness is the answer. Also, although I have some rough ideas, I’m not confident that these tactics or any others hold much promise. I am, however, inclined to leave this option on the table.
A far less controversial tactic is to put much greater emphasis on positive emotion. Specifically, EA could do a lot more to increase its focus on storytelling through entertaining, emotionally-potent mediums, like TV. “The Good Place” is an example of a TV show that seems to have had some influence and commercial success, despite its moral content. I think many in EA have recognized this and there’s been some trending in this direction. A recent 80,000 hours episode explored this possibility, for instance. Such an approach does come with much ambiguity and, I suspect, is not in the wheelhouse of many EAs. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to explore the possibility seriously.
I don't know to what extent Moskowitz could have influenced Zuckerberg, but I am somewhat intrigued by the potential power of negative emotion that you bring up.
Ironically, one of the emotions that reflection on effective altruism has brought me is rather intense anger. The vast majority of people in developed countries have the ability to use their resources to save lives, significantly mitigate the mass torture of animals, or otherwise make the world a much better place with the power they have. Yet, even when confronted squarely with this opportunity, most do not do it.
I think about other mass injustices and movements that have sought to address them and I think we remember that there was a place for righteous fury- I think of, for instance of women's suffrage or the civil rights movement. But yet, the attitude regarding EAs is often conciliatory, milquetoast, professorial... almost embarrassed to be holding beliefs in which the judgment of most humans is only a close corollary away.
I realize that in one-on-one interactions, a condemnatory approach is unlikely to gain us allies. But I wonder if a powerful engine for fighting global poverty, animal torture, and the continued existence of conscious life might be the activation of the emotion that such matters merit.
I can relate to lot of what you said. Also, that's an astute point you make about a more extreme approach being unlikely to help in one-on-one situations but having potential for shaping broader culture or changing the discourse.
Here's one specific idea: a public record of how the ultra-rich use their money, which also converts the money they spend on themselves (e.g. on a yacht) into lives that could have been saved had they donated those funds.