Jump to content

Effective altruism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates impartially calculating benefits and prioritizing causes to provide the greatest good. It is motivated by "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis".[1][2] People who pursue the goals of effective altruism, who are sometimes called effective altruists,[3] follow a variety of approaches proposed by the movement, such as donating to selected charities and choosing careers with the aim of maximizing positive impact. The movement has achieved significant popularity outside of academia, spurring the creation of university-based institutes, research centers, advisory organizations and charities, which, collectively, have donated several hundreds of millions of dollars.[4]

Effective altruists emphasize impartiality and the global equal consideration of interests when choosing beneficiaries. Popular cause priorities within effective altruism include global health and development, social and economic inequality, animal welfare, and risks to the survival of humanity over the long-term future. EA has an especially influential status within animal advocacy.[4]

The movement developed during the 2000s, and the name effective altruism was coined in 2011. Philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill. What began as a set of evaluation techniques advocated by a diffuse coalition evolved into an identity.[5] Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities in the United States and Britain, and Silicon Valley has become a key centre for the "longtermist" submovement, with a tight subculture there.[6]

The movement received mainstream attention and criticism with the bankruptcy of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX as founder Sam Bankman-Fried was a major funder of effective altruism causes prior to late 2022. Some in the San Francisco Bay Area criticized what they described as a culture of sexual misconduct.

History

[edit]
Peter Singer and William MacAskill are among several philosophers who have helped popularize effective altruism.

Beginning in the latter half of the 2000s, several communities centered around altruist, rationalist, and futurological concerns started to converge, such as:[7]

In 2011, Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours decided to incorporate into an umbrella organization and held a vote for their new name; the "Centre for Effective Altruism" was selected.[13][14] The Effective Altruism Global conference has been held since 2013. As the movement formed, it attracted individuals who were not part of a specific community, but who had been following the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer's work on applied ethics, particularly "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), Animal Liberation (1975), and The Life You Can Save (2009).[7][15] Singer himself used the term in 2013, in a TED talk titled "The Why and How of Effective Altruism".[16]

Notable philanthropists

[edit]

An estimated $416 million was donated to effective charities identified by the movement in 2019,[17] representing a 37% annual growth rate since 2015.[18] Two of the largest donors in the effective altruism community, Dustin Moskovitz, who had become wealthy through co-founding Facebook, and his wife Cari Tuna, hope to donate most of their net worth of over $11 billion for effective altruist causes through the private foundation Good Ventures.[9] Others influenced by effective altruism include Sam Bankman-Fried,[19] as well as professional poker players Dan Smith[20] and Liv Boeree.[20] Jaan Tallinn, the Estonian billionaire founder of Skype, is known for donating to some effective altruist causes.[21] Sam Bankman-Fried launched a philanthropic organization called the FTX Foundation in February 2021,[22] and it made contributions to a number of effective altruist organizations, but it was shut down in November 2022 when FTX collapsed.[23]

Notable publications and media

[edit]

A number of books and articles related to effective altruism have been published that have codified, criticized, and brought more attention to the movement. In 2015, philosopher Peter Singer published The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.[24] The same year, the Scottish philosopher and ethicist William MacAskill published Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference.[25][26]

In 2018, American news website Vox launched its Future Perfect section, led by journalist Dylan Matthews, which publishes articles and podcasts on "finding the best ways to do good".[27][28]

In 2019, Oxford University Press published the volume Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues, edited by Hilary Greaves and Theron Pummer.[29]

More recent books have emphasized concerns for future generations. In 2020, the Australian moral philosopher Toby Ord published The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity,[30] while MacAskill published What We Owe the Future in 2022.[31]

In 2023, Oxford University Press published the volume The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism, edited by Carol J. Adams, Alice Crary, and Lori Gruen.[32][33]

Philosophy

[edit]

Effective altruists focus on the many philosophical questions related to the most effective ways to benefit others.[34][35] Such philosophical questions shift the starting point of reasoning from "what to do" to "why" and "how".[36] There is not a consensus on the answers, and there are also differences between effective altruists who believe that they should do the most good they possibly can with all of their resources[37] and those who only try do the most good they can within a defined budget.[35]: 15 

According to MacAskill, the view of effective altruism as doing the most good one can within a defined budget can be compatible with a wide variety of views on morality and meta-ethics, as well as traditional religious teachings on altruism such as in Christianity.[1][34] Effective altruism can also be in tension with religion where religion emphasizes spending resources on worship and evangelism instead of causes that do the most good.[1]

Other than Peter Singer and William MacAskill, philosophers associated with effective altruism include Nick Bostrom,[21] Toby Ord,[38] Hilary Greaves,[39] and Derek Parfit.[40] Economist Yew-Kwang Ng conducted similar research in welfare economics and moral philosophy.[41]

The Centre for Effective Altruism lists the following four principles that unite effective altruism: prioritization, impartial altruism, open truthseeking, and a collaborative spirit.[42] To support people's ability to act altruistically on the basis of impartial reasoning, the effective altruism movement promotes values and actions such as a collaborative spirit, honesty, transparency, and publicly pledging to donate a certain percentage of income or other resources.[1]: 2 

Impartiality

[edit]
See also: Equal consideration of interests

Effective altruism aims to emphasize impartial reasoning in that everyone's well-being counts equally.[43] Singer, in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality",[15] wrote:

It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away ... The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society.[44]: 231–232 

Impartiality combined with seeking to do the most good leads to prioritizing benefits to those who are in a worse state, because anyone who happens to be worse off will benefit more from an improvement in their state, all other things being equal.[34][42]

Scope of moral consideration

[edit]

One issue related to moral impartiality is the question of which beings are deserving of moral consideration. Some effective altruists consider the well-being of non-human animals in addition to humans, and advocate for animal welfare issues such as ending factory farming.[45] Those who subscribe to longtermism include future generations as possible beneficiaries and try to improve the moral value of the long-term future by, for example, reducing existential risks.[14]: 165–178 [46]

Criticism of impartiality

[edit]

The drowning child analogy in Singer's essay provoked philosophical debate. In response to a version of Singer's drowning child analogy,[47] philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in 2006 asked whether the most effective action of a man in an expensive suit, confronted with a drowning child, would not be to save the child and ruin his suit—but rather, sell the suit and donate the proceeds to charity.[48][49] Appiah believed that he "should save the drowning child and ruin my suit".[48] In a 2015 debate, when presented with a similar scenario of either saving a child from a burning building or saving a Picasso painting to sell and donate the proceeds to charity, MacAskill responded that the effective altruist should save and sell the Picasso.[50] Psychologist Alan Jern called MacAskill's choice "unnatural, even distasteful, to many people", although Jern concluded that effective altruism raises questions "worth asking".[51] MacAskill later endorsed a "qualified definition of effective altruism" in which effective altruists try to do the most good "without violating constraints" such as any obligations that someone might have to help those nearby.[52]

William Schambra has criticized the impartial logic of effective altruism, arguing that benevolence arising from reciprocity and face-to-face interactions is stronger and more prevalent than charity based on impartial, detached altruism.[53] Such community-based charitable giving, he wrote, is foundational to civil society and, in turn, democracy.[53] Larissa MacFarquhar said that people have diverse moral emotions, and she suggested that some effective altruists are not unemotional and detached but feel as much empathy for distant strangers as for people nearby.[54] Richard Pettigrew concurred that many effective altruists "feel more profound dismay at the suffering of people unknown to them than many people feel", and he argued that impartiality in EA need not be dispassionate and "is not obviously in tension with much in care ethics" as some philosophers have argued.[33] Ross Douthat of The New York Times criticized the movement's "'telescopic philanthropy' aimed at distant populations" and envisioned "effective altruists sitting around in a San Francisco skyscraper calculating how to relieve suffering halfway around the world while the city decays beneath them", while he also praised the movement for providing "useful rebukes to the solipsism and anti-human pessimism that haunts the developed world today".[55]

Cause prioritization

[edit]

A key component of effective altruism is "cause prioritization". Cause prioritization is based on the principle of cause neutrality, the idea that resources should be distributed to causes based on what will do the most good, irrespective of the identity of the beneficiary and the way in which they are helped.[34] By contrast, many non-profits emphasize effectiveness and evidence with respect to a single cause such as education or climate change.[53]

One tool that EA-based organizations may use to prioritize cause areas is the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework. Importance is the amount of value that would be created if a problem were solved, tractability is the fraction of a problem that would be solved if additional resources were devoted to it, and neglectedness is the quantity of resources already committed to a cause.[5]

The information required for cause prioritization may involve data analysis, comparing possible outcomes with what would have happened under other conditions (counterfactual reasoning), and identifying uncertainty.[34][56] The difficulty of these tasks has led to the creation of organizations that specialize in researching the relative prioritization of causes.[34]

Criticism of cause prioritization

[edit]

This practice of "weighing causes and beneficiaries against one another" was criticized by Ken Berger and Robert Penna of Charity Navigator for being "moralistic, in the worst sense of the word" and "elitist".[57] William MacAskill responded to Berger and Penna, defending the rationale for comparing one beneficiary's interests against another and concluding that such comparison is difficult and sometimes impossible but often necessary.[58] MacAskill argued that the more pernicious form of elitism was that of donating to art galleries (and like institutions) instead of charity.[58] Ian David Moss suggested that the criticism of cause prioritization could be resolved by what he called "domain-specific effective altruism", which would encourage "that principles of effective altruism be followed within an area of philanthropic focus, such as a specific cause or geography" and could resolve the conflict between local and global perspectives for some donors.[59]

Cost-effectiveness

[edit]

Some charities are considered to be far more effective than others, as charities may spend different amounts of money to achieve the same goal, and some charities may not achieve the goal at all.[60] Effective altruists seek to identify interventions that are highly cost-effective in expectation. Many interventions have uncertain benefits, and the expected value of one intervention can be higher than that of another if its benefits are larger, even if it has a smaller chance of succeeding.[26] One metric effective altruists use to choose between health interventions is the estimated number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) added per dollar.[5]

Some effective altruist organizations prefer randomized controlled trials as a primary form of evidence,[26][61] as they are commonly considered the highest level of evidence in healthcare research.[62] Others have argued that requiring this stringent level of evidence unnecessarily narrows the focus to issues where the evidence can be developed.[63] Kelsey Piper argues that uncertainty is not a good reason for effective altruists to avoid acting on their best understanding of the world, because most interventions have mixed evidence regarding their effectiveness.[64]

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry and others have warned about the "measurement problem",[63][65] with issues such as medical research or government reform worked on "one grinding step at a time", and results being hard to measure with controlled experiments. Gobry also argues that such interventions risk being undervalued by the effective altruism movement.[65] As effective altruism emphasizes a data-centric approach, critics say principles which do not lend themselves to quantification—justice, fairness, equality—get left in the sidelines.[5][26]

Counterfactual reasoning

[edit]

Counterfactual reasoning involves considering the possible outcomes of alternative choices. It has been employed by effective altruists in a number of contexts, including career choice. Many people assume that the best way to help others is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services.[66] However, since there is a high supply of candidates for such positions, it makes sense to compare the amount of good one candidate does to how much good the next-best candidate would do. According to this reasoning, the marginal impact of a career is likely to be smaller than the gross impact.[67]

Differences from utilitarianism

[edit]

Although EA aims for maximizing like utilitarianism, EA differs from utilitarianism in a few ways; for example, EA does not claim that people should always maximize the good regardless of the means, and EA does not claim that the good is the sum total of well-being.[52] Toby Ord has described utilitarians as "number-crunching", compared with most effective altruists whom he called "guided by conventional wisdom tempered by an eye to the numbers".[68] Other philosophers have argued that EA still retains some core ethical commitments that are essential and distinctive to utilitarianism, such as the principle of impartiality, welfarism and good-maximization.[69]

MacAskill has argued that one shouldn't be absolutely certain about which ethical view is correct, and that "when we are morally uncertain, we should act in a way that serves as a best compromise between different moral views".[31] He also wrote that even from a purely consequentialist perspective, "naive calculations that justify some harmful action because it has good consequences are, in practice, almost never correct".[31]

Cause priorities

[edit]

The principles and goals of effective altruism are wide enough to support furthering any cause that allows people to do the most good, while taking into account cause neutrality.[36] Many people in the effective altruism movement have prioritized global health and development, animal welfare, and mitigating risks that threaten the future of humanity.[9][61]

Global health and development

[edit]

The alleviation of global poverty and neglected tropical diseases has been a focus of some of the earliest and most prominent organizations associated with effective altruism. Charity evaluator GiveWell was founded by Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld in 2007 to address poverty,[70] where they believe additional donations to be the most impactful.[71] GiveWell's leading recommendations include: malaria prevention charities Against Malaria Foundation and Malaria Consortium, deworming charities Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Deworm the World Initiative, and GiveDirectly for direct cash transfers to beneficiaries.[72][73] The organization The Life You Can Save, which originated from Singer's book of the same name,[74] works to alleviate global poverty by promoting evidence-backed charities, conducting philanthropy education, and changing the culture of giving in affluent countries.[75]

Animal welfare

[edit]

Improving animal welfare has been a focus of many effective altruists.[76] Singer and Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) have argued that effective altruists should prioritize changes to factory farming over pet welfare.[24] 60 billion land animals are slaughtered and between 1 and 2.7 trillion individual fish are killed each year for human consumption.[77]

A number of non-profit organizations have been established that adopt an effective altruist approach toward animal welfare. ACE evaluates animal charities based on their cost-effectiveness and transparency, particularly those tackling factory farming.[14]: 139 [78] Faunalytics focuses on animal welfare research.[79] Other animal initiatives affiliated with effective altruism include Animal Ethics' and Wild Animal Initiative's work on wild animal suffering,[80][81] addressing farm animal suffering with cultured meat,[82] and increasing concern for all kinds of animals.[83][84] The Sentience Institute is a think tank founded to expand the moral circle to other sentient beings.[85]

Long-term future and global catastrophic risks

[edit]

The ethical stance of longtermism, emphasizing the importance of positively influencing the long-term future, developed closely in relation to effective altruism.[86][87] Longtermism argues that "distance in time is like distance in space", suggesting that the welfare of future individuals matters as much as the welfare of currently existing individuals. Given the potentially extremely high number of individuals that could exist in the future, longtermists seek to decrease the probability that an existential catastrophe irreversibly ruins it.[88] Toby Ord has stated that "the people of the future may be even more powerless to protect themselves from the risks we impose than the dispossessed of our own time".[89]: 8 

Existential risks, such as dangers associated with biotechnology and advanced artificial intelligence, are often highlighted and the subject of active research.[87] Existential risks have such huge impacts that achieving a very small change in such a risk—say a 0.0001-percent reduction—"might be worth more than saving a billion people today", reported Gideon Lewis-Kraus in 2022, but he added that nobody in the EA community openly endorses such an extreme conclusion.[5]

Organizations that work actively on research and advocacy for improving the long-term future, and have connections with the effective altruism community, are the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, and the Future of Life Institute.[90] In addition, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute is focused on the more narrow mission of managing advanced artificial intelligence.[91]

Approaches

[edit]

Effective altruists pursue different approaches to doing good, such as donating to effective charitable organizations, using their career to make more money for donations or directly contributing their labor, and starting new non-profit or for-profit ventures.

Donation

[edit]

Financial donation

[edit]

Many effective altruists engage in charitable donation. Some believe it is a moral duty to alleviate suffering through donations if other possible uses of those funds do not offer comparable benefits to oneself.[44] Some lead a frugal lifestyle in order to donate more.[92]

Giving What We Can (GWWC) is an organization whose members pledge to donate at least 10% of their future income to the causes that they believe are the most effective. GWWC was founded in 2009 by Toby Ord, who lives on £18,000 ($27,000) per year and donates the balance of his income.[93] In 2020, Ord said that people had donated over $100 million to date through the GWWC pledge.[94]

Founders Pledge is a similar initiative, founded out of the non-profit Founders Forum for Good, whereby entrepreneurs make a legally binding commitment to donate a percentage of their personal proceeds to charity in the event that they sell their business.[95] As of April 2024, nearly 1,900 entrepreneurs had pledged around $10 billion and nearly $1.1 billion had been donated.[96]

Organ donation

[edit]

EA has been used to argue that humans should donate organs, whilst alive or after death, and some effective altruists do.[97]

Career choice

[edit]

Effective altruists often consider using their career to do good,[98] both by direct service and indirectly through their consumption, investment, and donation decisions.[99] 80,000 Hours is an organization that conducts research and gives advice on which careers have the largest positive impact.[100][101]

Earning to give

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Earning to give.[edit]
Earning to give involves deliberately pursuing a high-earning career for the purpose of donating a significant portion of earned income, typically because of a desire to do effective altruism. Advocates of earning to give contend that maximizing the amount one can donate to charity is an important consideration for individuals when deciding what career to pursue.[102]

Founding effective organizations

[edit]

Some effective altruists start non-profit or for-profit organizations to implement cost-effective ways of doing good. On the non-profit side, for example, Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster conducted randomized controlled trials in Kenya to find out the best way to improve students' test scores. They tried new textbooks and flip charts, as well as smaller class sizes, but found that the only intervention that raised school attendance was treating intestinal worms in children. Based on their findings, they started the Deworm the World Initiative.[26] From 2013 to August 2022, GiveWell designated Deworm the World (now run by nonprofit Evidence Action) as a top charity based on their assessment that mass deworming is "generally highly cost-effective";[103] however, there is substantial uncertainty about the benefits of mass deworming programs, with some studies finding long-term effects and others not.[64] The Happier Lives Institute conducts research on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in developing countries;[104] Canopie develops an app that provides cognitive behavioural therapy to women who are expecting or postpartum;[105] Giving Green analyzes and ranks climate interventions for effectiveness;[106] the Fish Welfare Initiative works on improving animal welfare in fishing and aquaculture;[83] and the Lead Exposure Elimination Project works on reducing lead poisoning in developing countries.[107]

Incremental versus systemic change

[edit]

While much of the initial focus of effective altruism was on direct strategies such as health interventions and cash transfers, more systematic social, economic, and political reforms have also attracted attention.[108] Mathew Snow in Jacobin wrote that effective altruism "implores individuals to use their money to procure necessities for those who desperately need them, but says nothing about the system that determines how those necessities are produced and distributed in the first place".[109] Philosopher Amia Srinivasan criticized William MacAskill's Doing Good Better for a perceived lack of coverage of global inequality and oppression, while noting that effective altruism is in principle open to whichever means of doing good is most effective, including political advocacy aimed at systemic change.[110] Srinivasan said, "Effective altruism has so far been a rather homogeneous movement of middle-class white men fighting poverty through largely conventional means, but it is at least in theory a broad church."[110] Judith Lichtenberg in The New Republic said that effective altruists "neglect the kind of structural and political change that is ultimately necessary".[111] An article in The Ecologist published in 2016 argued that effective altruism is an apolitical attempt to solve political problems, describing the concept as "pseudo-scientific".[112] The Ethiopian-American AI scientist Timnit Gebru has condemned effective altruists "for acting as though their concerns are above structural issues as racism and colonialism", as Gideon Lewis-Kraus summarized her views in 2022.[5]

Philosophers such as Susan Dwyer, Joshua Stein, and Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò have criticized effective altruism for furthering the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals in domains that should be the responsibility of democratic governments and organizations.[113]

Arguments have been made that movements focused on systemic or institutional change, for example democratization, are compatible with effective altruism.[114][115][116] Philosopher Elizabeth Ashford posits that people are obligated to both donate to effective aid charities and to reform the structures that are responsible for poverty.[117] Open Philanthropy has given grants for progressive advocacy work in areas such as criminal justice,[9][118] economic stabilization,[9] and housing reform,[119] despite pegging the success of political reform as being "highly uncertain".[9]

Psychological research

[edit]
Main article: Psychological barriers to effective altruism

Researchers in psychology and related fields have identified psychological barriers to effective altruism that can cause people to choose less effective options when they engage in altruistic activities such as charitable giving.[120]

Other criticism and controversies

[edit]

While originally the movement leaders were associated with frugal lifestyles, the arrival of big donors, including Bankman-Fried, led to more spending and opulence, which seemed incongruous to the movement's espoused values.[121][122] In 2022, Effective Ventures Foundation purchased the estate of Wytham Abbey for the purpose of running workshops,[5] but put it up for sale in 2024.[123]

Timnit Gebru claimed that effective altruism has acted to overrule any other concerns regarding AI ethics (e.g. deepfake porn, algorithmic bias), in the name of either preventing or controlling artificial general intelligence.[124] She and Émile P. Torres further assert that the movement belongs to a network of interconnected movements they've termed TESCREAL, which they contend serves as intellectual justification for wealthy donors to shape humanity's future.[125]

Sam Bankman-Fried

[edit]

Sam Bankman-Fried, the eventual founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, had a seminal lunch with philosopher William MacAskill in 2012 while he was an undergraduate at MIT in which MacAskill encouraged him to go earn money and donate it, rather than volunteering his time for causes.[6][126] Bankman-Fried went on to a career in investing and around 2019 became more publicly associated with the effective altruism movement,[127] announcing that his goal was to "donate as much as [he] can".[128] Bankman-Fried founded the FTX Future Fund, which brought on MacAskill as one of its advisers, and which made a $13.9 million grant to the Centre for Effective Altruism where MacAskill holds a board role.[126]

After the collapse of FTX in late 2022, the movement underwent additional public scrutiny.[122][129] Bankman-Fried's relationship with effective altruism has been called into question as a public relations strategy,[6][130] while the movement's embrace of him proved damaging to its reputation.[126][131] Some journalists asked whether the effective altruist movement was "complicit" in FTX's collapse, because it was convenient for leaders to overlook specific warnings about Bankman-Fried's behavior or questionable ethics at the trading firm Alameda.[121][132] Fortune's crypto editor Jeff John Roberts said that "Bankman-Fried and his cronies professed devotion to 'EA,' but all their high-minded words turned out to be flimflam to justify robbing people".[133]

However, several leaders of the effective altruism movement, including William MacAskill and Robert Wiblin, condemned FTX's actions.[129] MacAskill reemphasized that bringing about good consequences does not justify violating rights or sacrificing integrity.[134]

Philosopher Leif Wenar argued that Bankman-Fried's conduct typified much of the movement by focusing on positive impacts and expected value without adequately weighing risk and harm from philanthropy.[122] He argued that the FTX case is not separable, as some in the EA community maintained, from the assumptions and reasoning that molded effective altruism as a philosophy in the first place and that Wenar considered to be simplistic. Philosophers Richard Pettigrew and Richard Yetter Chappell were among those who responded to Wenar with defenses of EA.[135]

Sexual misconduct accusations

[edit]

Critiques arose not only in relation to Bankman-Fried's role and his close association with William MacAskill, but also concerning issues of exclusion and sexual harassment.[6][136][137] A 2023 Bloomberg article featured some members of the effective altruism community who alleged that the philosophy masked a culture of predatory behavior.[138] In a 2023 Time magazine article, seven women reported misconduct and controversy in the effective altruism movement. They accused men within the movement, typically in the Bay Area, of using their power to groom younger women for polyamorous sexual relationships.[136] The accusers argued that the majority male demographic and the polyamorous subculture combined to create an environment where sexual misconduct was tolerated, excused or rationalized away.[136] In response to the accusations, the Centre for Effective Altruism told Time that some of the alleged perpetrators had already been banned from the organization and said it would investigate new claims.[136] The organization also argued that it is challenging to discern to what extent sexual misconduct issues were specific to the effective altruism community or reflective of broader societal misogyny.[136]

Other prominent people

[edit]

Businessman Elon Musk spoke at an effective altruism conference in 2015.[126] He described MacAskill's 2022 book What We Owe the Future as "a close match for my philosophy", but has not officially joined the movement.[126] An article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy argued that the record of Musk's substantive alignment with effective altruism was "choppy",[139] and Bloomberg News noted that his 2021 charitable contributions showed "few obvious signs that effective altruism... impacted Musk's giving."[140]

Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt has publicly stated he would like to bring the ideas of effective altruism to a broader audience.[5]

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has called effective altruism an "incredibly flawed movement" that shows "very weird emergent behavior".[141][further explanation needed] Effective altruist concerns about AI risk were present among the OpenAI board members who fired Altman in November 2023;[133][141][142] he has been reinstated as CEO and the Board membership has changed.[143]

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d MacAskill, William (January 2017). "Effective altruism: introduction". Essays in Philosophy. 18 (1): eP1580:1–5. doi:10.7710/1526-0569.1580. ISSN 1526-0569. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  2. ^ The quoted definition is endorsed by a number of organizations at: "CEA's Guiding Principles". Centre For Effective Altruism. Retrieved December 3, 2021.
  3. ^ The term effective altruists is used to refer to people who embrace effective altruism in many published sources such as Oliver (2014), Singer (2015), and MacAskill (2017), though as Pummer & MacAskill (2020) noted, calling people "effective altruists" minimally means that they are engaged in the project of "using evidence and reason to try to find out how to do the most good, and on this basis trying to do the most good", not that they are perfectly effective nor even that they necessarily participate in the effective altruism community.
  4. ^ a b Adams, Crary & Gruen 2023, p. xxii.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Lewis-Kraus, Gideon (August 8, 2022). "The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved December 4, 2022.
  6. ^ a b c d Tiku, Nitasha (November 17, 2022). "The do-gooder movement that shielded Sam Bankman-Fried from scrutiny". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 25, 2022.
  7. ^ a b Anthis, Jayce Reese (May 15, 2022). "Some Early History of Effective Altruism". Jacy Reese Anthis. Retrieved June 3, 2022.
  8. ^ Strom, Stephanie (December 20, 2007). "2 Young Hedge-Fund Veterans Stir Up the World of Philanthropy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 3, 2022.
  9. ^ a b c d e f Matthews, Dylan (April 24, 2015). "You have $8 billion. You want to do as much good as possible. What do you do? Inside the Open Philanthropy Project". Vox. Archived from the original on August 24, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  10. ^ Cha, Ariana Eunjung (December 26, 2014). "Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz: Young Silicon Valley billionaires pioneer new approach to philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 6, 2022.
  11. ^ Christian, Alex (October 10, 2023). "FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried believed in 'effective altruism'. What is it?". BBC. Retrieved May 16, 2024.
  12. ^ Chivers, Tom (2019). "The Effective Altruists". The AI Does Not Hate You: The Rationalists and Their Quest to Save the World. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-1-4746-0877-0.
  13. ^
  14. ^ a b c Singer, Peter (2015). The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically. Castle lectures in ethics, politics, and economics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300180275. OCLC 890614537.
  15. ^ a b On the influence of Singer's essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" see, for example: Snow 2015, Singer 2015, pp. 13–20, and Lichtenberg, Judith (November 30, 2015). "Peter Singer's extremely altruistic heirs: Forty years after it was written, 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' has spawned a radical new movement". The New Republic. Singer's arguments for impartiality were later repeated in other books by him (such as Singer 2009, Singer 2015).
  16. ^ Gose, Ben (April 5, 2015). "Don't Let Passion Guide Giving, Peter Singer Says". The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
  17. ^ Todd, Benjamin (August 9, 2020). "How are resources in effective altruism allocated across issues?". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved December 15, 2021.
  18. ^ Todd, Benjamin (July 28, 2021). "Is effective altruism growing? An update on the stock of funding vs. people". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved December 15, 2021.
  19. ^ Zillman, Claire (July 29, 2021). "Sam Bankman-Fried and the conscience of a crypto billionaire". Fortune. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  20. ^ a b Pincus-Roth, Zachary (September 23, 2020). "The Rise of the Rational Do-Gooders". The Washington Post Magazine. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  21. ^ a b Matthews, Dylan (August 10, 2015). "I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds about charity. I came away … worried". Vox. Retrieved August 13, 2022.
  22. ^ FTX (February 8, 2021). "The FTX Foundation for Charitable Giving". ftx.medium.com. Archived from the original on February 8, 2021. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  23. ^ Howcroft, Elizabeth (April 6, 2023). "Collapse of FTX deprives academics of grants, stokes fears of forced repayment". Reuters. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  24. ^ a b Kristof, Nicholas (April 4, 2015). "The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 9, 2019. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  25. ^
  26. ^ a b c d e Thompson, Derek (June 15, 2015). "The Greatest Good". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  27. ^ Schmidt, Christine (October 15, 2018). "Will Vox's new section on effective altruism... well, do any good?". Nieman Journalism Lab. Archived from the original on February 1, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  28. ^ Matthews, Dylan (October 15, 2018). "Future Perfect, explained". Vox. Archived from the original on December 25, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2018. Some topics that the Future Perfect series has covered include:
  29. ^ Greaves, Hilary; Pummer, Theron, eds. (November 15, 2019). Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues. Engaging Philosophy. Oxford, England; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-884136-4.
  30. ^ Pummer, Theron (August 2, 2020). "The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved August 13, 2022.
  31. ^ a b c MacAskill, William (2022). What We Owe the Future. Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1862-6. OCLC 1314633519.
  32. ^ Adams, Carol J.; Crary, Alice; Gruen, Lori, eds. (2023). The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197655696.001.0001. ISBN 9780197655702. OCLC 1350838764.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  33. ^ a b Pettigrew, Richard (September 27, 2023). "Review of Carol J. Adams, Alice Crary, and Lori Gruen (eds.) The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism, 2023, Oxford: Oxford University Press". Mind. doi:10.1093/mind/fzad047.
  34. ^ a b c d e f Pummer, Theron; MacAskill, William (June 2020). "Effective altruism". In LaFollette, Hugh (ed.). International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–9. doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee883. ISBN 9781444367072. OCLC 829259960. S2CID 241220220.
  35. ^ a b MacAskill, William (2019a). "The definition of effective altruism". In Greaves, Hilary; Pummer, Theron (eds.). Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues. Engaging philosophy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 10–28. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841364.003.0001. ISBN 9780198841364. OCLC 1101772304.
  36. ^ a b Crouch, Will (May 30, 2013). "What is effective altruism?". Practical Ethics Blog. University of Oxford. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  37. ^ Singer (2015) expressed a clearly normative view: "Effective altruism is based on a very simple idea: we should do the most good we can. Obeying the usual rules about not stealing, cheating, hurting, and killing is not enough, or at least not enough for those of us who have the great good fortune to live in material comfort, who can feed, house, and clothe ourselves and our families and still have money or time to spare. Living a minimally acceptable ethical life involves using a substantial part of our spare resources to make the world a better place. Living a fully ethical life involves doing the most good we can." (p. vii)
  38. ^ Bajekal, Naina (August 22–29, 2022). "How to do the most good: a growing movement argues we should care about people thousands of miles away—and millions of years in the future". Time. Vol. 200, no. 7–8. pp. 69–75.
  39. ^ "Hilary Greaves". Faculty of Philosophy. University of Oxford. Retrieved August 13, 2022.
  40. ^ O'Grady, Jane (January 12, 2017). "Derek Parfit obituary". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved July 3, 2017.
  41. ^ Wiblin, Robert; Harris, Keiran (July 26, 2018). "Prof Yew-Kwang Ng on ethics and how to create a much happier world". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved August 13, 2022.
  42. ^ a b "What is effective altruism?". Centre for Effective Altruism. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved November 30, 2023. These four principles were first called "values" and were added to the cited web page sometime between July 27, 2022 and August 2, 2022.
  43. ^ Singer 2015, pp. 85–95; MacAskill 2019a, pp. 17–19; Pummer & MacAskill 2020.
  44. ^ a b Singer, Peter (Spring 1972). "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1 (3): 229–243. JSTOR 2265052. The essay was republished in book form in 2016 with a new preface and two extra essays by Singer: Singer, Peter (2016). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190219208. OCLC 907446001.
  45. ^
  46. ^ Beckstead, Nick (2019). "A brief argument for the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future". In Greaves, Hilary; Pummer, Theron (eds.). Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues. Engaging philosophy. Oxford, England; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 80–98. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841364.003.0006. ISBN 9780198841364. OCLC 1101772304.
  47. ^ Zwolinski, Matt (August 24, 2015). "Why Wouldn't You Save a Drowning Child?". Foundation for Economic Education.
  48. ^ a b Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Issues of Our Time. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 158–162. ISBN 0393061558. OCLC 61445790.
  49. ^ Mclauchlan, Danyl (April 8, 2019). "In search of a way to do good that amounts to more than feeling good". The Spinoff. Retrieved December 19, 2022.
  50. ^ Effective Altruism: A Better Way to Lead an Ethical Life. Intelligence Squared. November 30, 2015. Event occurs at 21:05. Retrieved January 23, 2022 – via YouTube.
  51. ^ Jern, Alan (October 13, 2020). "Effective altruism is logical, but too unnatural to catch on". Psyche.co. Retrieved January 23, 2022.
  52. ^ a b MacAskill 2019a, pp. 15–20, especially section 4.1, "Misconception #1: Effective altruism is just utilitarianism"; Pummer & MacAskill 2020.
  53. ^ a b c Schambra, William A. (May 22, 2014). "Opinion: The coming showdown between philanthrolocalism and effective altruism". Philanthropy Daily. Archived from the original on February 5, 2020. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  54. ^ MacFarquhar, Larissa (July 1, 2015). "Forum Response: Response to Effective Altruism: Altruism at a distance need not require choosing logic over empathy". Boston Review.
  55. ^ Douthat, Ross (November 18, 2022). "Opinion | The Case for a Less-Effective Altruism". The New York Times. Retrieved December 19, 2022.
  56. ^ MacAskill, William (September 2019b). "Practical ethics given moral uncertainty". Utilitas. 31 (3): 231–245. doi:10.1017/S0953820819000013. S2CID 150859616. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  57. ^ Berger, Ken; Penna, Robert (November 25, 2013). "The Elitist Philanthropy of So-Called Effective Altruism". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Archived from the original on December 3, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2021.
  58. ^ a b MacAskill, William (December 3, 2013). "What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Archived from the original on December 3, 2021. Retrieved December 5, 2021.
  59. ^ Moss, Ian David (Spring 2017). "In Defense of Pet Causes". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved December 19, 2022.
  60. ^ Thompson, Derek (June 15, 2015). "The Most Efficient Way to Save a Life". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 20, 2023.
  61. ^ a b Skelton, Anthony (2016). "The ethical principles of effective altruism". Journal of Global Ethics. 12 (2): 137–146. doi:10.1080/17449626.2016.1193552. S2CID 147936480. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  62. ^ A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council. 1998. pp. 21–25. ISBN 1864960485. Archived from the original on January 13, 2019. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
  63. ^ a b Rubenstein, Jennifer (December 14, 2016). "The Lessons of Effective Altruism". Ethics & International Affairs. Archived from the original on August 27, 2018. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  64. ^ a b Piper, Kelsey (July 19, 2022). "The return of the "worm wars"". Vox. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  65. ^ a b Gobry, Pascal-Emmanuel (March 16, 2015). "Can Effective Altruism really change the world?". The Week. Archived from the original on March 21, 2015. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
  66. ^ Rosato, Donna; Wong, Grace (November 2011). "Best jobs for saving the world". CNN. Archived from the original on March 3, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2013.
  67. ^ Todd, Benjamin. "Which Ethical Careers Make a Difference?: The Replaceability Issue in the Ethics of Career Choice". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  68. ^ Sandbu, Martin (December 29, 2023). "Effective altruism was the favoured creed of Sam Bankman-Fried. Can it survive his fall?". Financial Times.
  69. ^ Adams, Crary & Gruen 2023, p. xxvi.
  70. ^ Konduri, Vimal. "GiveWell Co-Founder Explains Effective Altruism Frameworks". The Harvard Crimson. Archived from the original on March 13, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2017.
  71. ^ Wolfe, Alexandra (November 24, 2011). "Hedge Fund Analytics for Nonprofits". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg LP. Archived from the original on March 16, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  72. ^ "Doing good by doing well". The Economist. Archived from the original on December 27, 2016. Retrieved March 10, 2017.
  73. ^ Pitney, Nico (March 26, 2015). "That Time A Hedge Funder Quit His Job And Then Raised $60 Million For Charity". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on May 18, 2015. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  74. ^ Singer, Peter (2009). The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House. ISBN 9781400067107. OCLC 232980306.
  75. ^ Zhang, Linch (March 17, 2017). "How To Do Good: A Conversation With The World's Leading Ethicist". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on March 24, 2017. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
  76. ^
  77. ^
  78. ^ Piper 2018a; Engber, Daniel (August 18, 2016). "How the Chicken Became the Unlikely Focus of the Animal Rights Movement". Slate Magazine. Retrieved August 13, 2022.
  79. ^ Piper, Kelsey (October 31, 2018). "Vegan diets are hard to sell. Animal activists might do better focused on corporate decisions, not people's plates". Vox. Archived from the original on January 13, 2019. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
  80. ^ Matthews, Dylan (April 12, 2021). "The wild frontier of animal welfare". Vox. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
  81. ^ ""Effective Altruism for Animals" Panel, Animal Studies". New York University Animal Studies Initiative. NYU. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  82. ^
  83. ^ a b Torrella, Kenny (March 2, 2021). "The next frontier for animal welfare: Fish". Vox. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
  84. ^
  85. ^ Sigal, Samuel (April 4, 2019). "Moral circle expansion: should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as humans?". Vox. Retrieved December 1, 2021.
  86. ^ MacAskill, William (August 7, 2022). "What is longtermism?". BBC. Retrieved September 15, 2022.
  87. ^ a b MacAskill, William (August 5, 2022). "Opinion | The Case for Longtermism". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 15, 2022.
  88. ^ "What is long-termism?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved May 16, 2024.
  89. ^ Ord, Toby (2020). "Introduction" (PDF). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781526600196. OCLC 1143365836. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 6, 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2020.
  90. ^ Guan, Melody (April 19, 2015). "The New Social Movement of our Generation: Effective Altruism". Harvard Political Review. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  91. ^
  92. ^ "Living modestly to give more", in Singer 2015, pp. 23–37; Burton, Paul (October 13, 2015). "Family Gives Away Half Their Income To Help Others". WBZ-TV. Archived from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  93. ^ Geoghegan, Tom (December 13, 2010). "Toby Ord: Why I'm giving £1m to charity". BBC News. Archived from the original on May 13, 2013. Retrieved March 2, 2013.
  94. ^ Matthews, Dylan (November 30, 2020). "Toby Ord explains his pledge to give 10% of his pay to charity". Vox. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  95. ^ Shead, Sam. "Facebook's little-known billionaire cofounder is funding a London charity". Business Insider. Retrieved May 12, 2024.
  96. ^ "Home". Founders Pledge. Archived from the original on April 5, 2024. Retrieved April 12, 2023.
  97. ^ Singer 2015, pp. 4, 14, 67–72, 100–101; Tonkens, Ryan (March 2018). "Effective altruists ought to be allowed to sell their kidneys". Bioethics. 32 (3): 147–154. doi:10.1111/bioe.12427. PMID 29369383.
  98. ^ Oliver, Huw (October 6, 2014). "'Effective altruists' are a new type of nice person". Vice. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  99. ^ William, MacAskill (2014). "Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 17 (2): 269–283. doi:10.1007/s10677-013-9433-4. ISSN 1386-2820. S2CID 143054318. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  100. ^ Matthews 2018a.
  101. ^ "Want To Make An Impact With Your Work? Try Some Advice From 80,000 Hours". TechCrunch. August 4, 2015. Archived from the original on November 9, 2015. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
  102. ^ Kristof, Nicholas (April 4, 2015). "The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay". The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2015.
  103. ^ "Evidence Action's Deworm the World Initiative – August 2022 version". GiveWell. August 2022. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  104. ^ Matthews, Dylan (November 18, 2021). "Is therapy the best way to make the world happier?". Vox. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
  105. ^ "Mayor Bowser Announces Partnership to Provide Free Access to the Canopie Maternal Mental Health Program | mayormb". mayor.dc.gov. September 15, 2021. Retrieved December 28, 2021.
  106. ^
  107. ^ Matthews, Dylan (January 14, 2022). "Nearly half the world's kids are exposed to dangerous levels of lead". Vox. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  108. ^ Weathers, Scott (February 29, 2016). "Can 'effective altruism' change the world? It already has". Transformation. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  109. ^ Snow, Mathew (August 25, 2015). "Against Charity". Jacobin. Archived from the original on August 28, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2016.
  110. ^ a b Srinivasan, Amia (September 24, 2015). "Stop the Robot Apocalypse". London Review of Books. 37 (18). Retrieved September 20, 2022.
  111. ^ Lichtenberg 2015.
  112. ^ Earle, Sam; Read, Rupert (April 5, 2016). "Why 'Effective Altruism' is ineffective: the case of refugees". The Ecologist. Retrieved November 23, 2022.
  113. ^
  114. ^ Kissel, Joshua (January 31, 2017). "Effective Altruism and Anti-Capitalism: An Attempt at Reconciliation". Essays in Philosophy. 18 (1): 68–90. doi:10.7710/1526-0569.1573.
  115. ^ Berkey, Brian (2018). "The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism" (PDF). Utilitas. 30 (2): 143–171. doi:10.1017/S0953820817000176. S2CID 12014675. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 13, 2017. Retrieved August 26, 2018.
  116. ^ Syme, Timothy (February 2019). "Charity vs. revolution: effective altruism and the systemic change objection". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 22 (1): 93–120. doi:10.1007/s10677-019-09979-5. S2CID 150872907.
  117. ^ Ashford, Elizabeth (2018). "Severe Poverty as an Unjust Emergency". In Woodruff, Paul (ed.). The Ethics of Giving: Philosophers' Perspectives on Philanthropy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 103–148. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190648879.003.0005. ISBN 9780190648879. OCLC 1025376469.
  118. ^ Schoffstall, Joe (August 2, 2021). "Mark Zuckerberg cash discreetly leaked into far-left prosecutor races". Fox News. Retrieved February 6, 2022.
  119. ^
  120. ^
  121. ^ a b Lewis-Kraus, Gideon (December 1, 2022). "Sam Bankman-Fried, Effective Altruism and the Question of Complicity". The New Yorker.
  122. ^ a b c Wenar, Leif. "The Deaths of Effective Altruism". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  123. ^ Neate, Rupert (May 12, 2024). "Wytham Abbey put up for sale for £15m by effective altruism group EVF". The Guardian.
  124. ^ Gebru, Timnit. "Effective Altruism Is Pushing a Dangerous Brand of 'AI Safety'". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved June 22, 2024.
  125. ^ Gebru, Timnit; Torres, Émile P. (April 14, 2024). "The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636. ISSN 1396-0466.
  126. ^ a b c d e Kulish, Nicholas (October 18, 2022). "How a Scottish Moral Philosopher Got Elon Musk's Number". The New York Times. Retrieved November 24, 2023.
  127. ^ Osipovich, Alexander (April 16, 2021). "This Vegan Billionaire Disrupted the Crypto Markets. Stocks May Be Next". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on June 4, 2021.
  128. ^ Schleifer, Theodore (March 20, 2021). "How a crypto billionaire decided to become one of Biden's biggest donors". Vox.
  129. ^ a b Samuel, Sigal (November 16, 2022). "Effective altruism gave rise to Sam Bankman-Fried. Now it's facing a moral reckoning". Vox. Retrieved November 19, 2022.
  130. ^ Hiltzik, Michael (November 21, 2022). "Column: How Sam Bankman-Fried exploited the 'effective altruism' fad to get rich and con the world". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 23, 2022.
  131. ^
  132. ^ Levitz, Eric (November 16, 2022). "Is Effective Altruism to Blame for Sam Bankman-Fried?". New York.
  133. ^ a b Roberts, Jeff John (November 20, 2023). "OpenAI's crackup is another black eye for effective altruism". Fortune.
  134. ^ MacAskill, William [@willmacaskill] (November 11, 2022). "A clear-thinking EA should strongly oppose "ends justify the means" reasoning. I hope to write more soon about this. In the meantime, here are some links to writings produced over the years" (Tweet). Archived from the original on November 24, 2022. Retrieved December 2, 2022 – via Twitter.
  135. ^
  136. ^ a b c d e Alter, Charlotte (February 3, 2023). "Effective Altruism Has a Hostile Culture for Women, Critics Say". Time. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved February 4, 2023.
  137. ^
  138. ^ Huet, Ellen (March 7, 2023). "Effective altruism's problems go beyond Sam Bankman-Fried". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
  139. ^ Evans, Nicholas G. (April 21, 2023). "Is Elon Musk on Board With 'Effective Altruism'?". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved March 31, 2024.
  140. ^ Alexander, Sophie (December 12, 2022). "Musk's $5.7 Billion Mystery Gift Went to His Own Charity". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved March 31, 2024.
  141. ^ a b McMillan, Robert; Seetharaman, Deepa (November 22, 2023). "How Effective Altruism Split Silicon Valley—and Fueled the Blowup at OpenAI". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 23, 2023.
  142. ^ Rai, Saritha; Huet, Ellen (November 22, 2023). "What's Effective Altruism? What Does It Mean for AI?". Bloomberg.
  143. ^

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to Effective altruism.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effective_altruism&oldid=1255422327"