The Deaths of Effective Altruism(wired.com)
wired.com
The Deaths of Effective Altruism
https://www.wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism/
57 comments
> Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketing/admin/etc). The rest is interpretation, as they say. That's all "EA" is.
The problem with EA, isn’t that it advocates doing that - there are a lot of moral frameworks that advocate that, but it creates an ethical framework that pretty much focuses solely on that and ignores the social and moral implications of the person’s behavior outside this. So no matter how many people the person is screwing over in their pursuit of wealth, no matter how many social rules they are breaking, as long as they are donating, they are fine.
It basically reduces morality to a cash flow problem and ignores the other moral and social implications of the (rich or wannabe rich) person’s pursuits and actions.
The problem with EA, isn’t that it advocates doing that - there are a lot of moral frameworks that advocate that, but it creates an ethical framework that pretty much focuses solely on that and ignores the social and moral implications of the person’s behavior outside this. So no matter how many people the person is screwing over in their pursuit of wealth, no matter how many social rules they are breaking, as long as they are donating, they are fine.
It basically reduces morality to a cash flow problem and ignores the other moral and social implications of the (rich or wannabe rich) person’s pursuits and actions.
> no matter how many people the person is screwing over
Are you sure? That sounds like a stupidly obvious factor to overlook.
Are you sure? That sounds like a stupidly obvious factor to overlook.
You're describing a failure mode of “earning to give”, and one that is explicitly called out as a trap to avoid.
This is like saying christians are immoral because they can sin as much as they want as long as they go to confession afterwards.
This is like saying christians are immoral because they can sin as much as they want as long as they go to confession afterwards.
We’ve been through this before haha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
If you study history, it is surprising how many “new” ideas are just recycled.
Even in computer science, many “new” ideas are recycled from the 60s and 70s.
Even in computer science, many “new” ideas are recycled from the 60s and 70s.
I would say that the big issue with indulgences, as they became exploited, was that they weren't in exchange for doing "effective" good.
Fake charity is a much bigger problem than an impure motive for giving.
Fake charity is a much bigger problem than an impure motive for giving.
Because its associated with bad things. And associated with bad things makes the thing bad too.
No other thinking required
No other thinking required
> No other thinking required
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here.
EA is just a slogan and a group of people.
If those people are doing (significant amounts of) bad things in the name of EA, associating them, then EA is bad. The slogan doesn't override the people. The people doing EA are EA.
Trying to make it more complicated is overthinking it. What you said is correct.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here.
EA is just a slogan and a group of people.
If those people are doing (significant amounts of) bad things in the name of EA, associating them, then EA is bad. The slogan doesn't override the people. The people doing EA are EA.
Trying to make it more complicated is overthinking it. What you said is correct.
I've always thought of the "Effective Altruism" movement as a product of big egos. The ones following it think they know better than the ones they're 'saving'. But perhaps the EA adherents are seeking salvation for themselves rather than others. They see the ones they want to help as 'pitiful' in some way and want to provide for them. That seems a rather dehumanizing attitude to me.
Maybe people don't view themselves as pitiful and want to provide for themselves rather than be dependent on handouts at some unreliable rando's discression? People on the other side of the planet can have very different societal norms that go unconsidered outside of their communities.
I've always thought sticking to 1 or 2 degrees of separation avoids issues of cultural differences and long logistical chains. And who better to ask what would really help people than their friends?
Then again, I think fate sometimes chooses you for a bit of charity work and it's wise to go along with it.
Maybe people don't view themselves as pitiful and want to provide for themselves rather than be dependent on handouts at some unreliable rando's discression? People on the other side of the planet can have very different societal norms that go unconsidered outside of their communities.
I've always thought sticking to 1 or 2 degrees of separation avoids issues of cultural differences and long logistical chains. And who better to ask what would really help people than their friends?
Then again, I think fate sometimes chooses you for a bit of charity work and it's wise to go along with it.
> I've always thought of the "Effective Altruism" movement as a product of big egos. The ones following it think they know better than the ones they're 'saving'.
At least initially, EA was a pretty big proponent of direct aid like GiveDirectly[0], because just giving people money was seen to be more effective than most (though not all[1]) other forms of aid.
As for myself, I don't see why someone on the other side of the world would be more or less pitiful than someone locally. My main reason for preferring indirect aid is that there's something morally suspicious to me about only people in my "clan" receiving my charity. Is it really charity if it goes only to people who I like and who are within knowing distance of me? Or am I trying to achieve something? (For the same reasons, I'm careful to keep most of my work anonymous)
[0]: GiveWell directed a lot of funds to GiveDirectly early on (https://www.givewell.org/top-charities-fund), though they haven't since 2016.
[1]: Healthcare interventions like deworming are usually more efficient per dollar, but not by much, but they benefit from economies of scale so directing money to them direction is worthwhile.
At least initially, EA was a pretty big proponent of direct aid like GiveDirectly[0], because just giving people money was seen to be more effective than most (though not all[1]) other forms of aid.
As for myself, I don't see why someone on the other side of the world would be more or less pitiful than someone locally. My main reason for preferring indirect aid is that there's something morally suspicious to me about only people in my "clan" receiving my charity. Is it really charity if it goes only to people who I like and who are within knowing distance of me? Or am I trying to achieve something? (For the same reasons, I'm careful to keep most of my work anonymous)
[0]: GiveWell directed a lot of funds to GiveDirectly early on (https://www.givewell.org/top-charities-fund), though they haven't since 2016.
[1]: Healthcare interventions like deworming are usually more efficient per dollar, but not by much, but they benefit from economies of scale so directing money to them direction is worthwhile.
I’ve always approached it from the other side and wondered about the appeal of altruism. Is it really so bad if you help your neighbor or someone you know? If you benefit from the improvement in your community is it some how less valuable? Your own community or clan is what you know best, what you are best positioned to help in monetary and non monetary ways.
I also wonder if there is any true altruism. I think people usually benefit from their service or donation even if it’s just feeling good (or perhaps feeling superior to people who focus on supporting their own communities).
You’ve “wondered” whether it’s actually preferable to help fewer people in less substantial and less cost-effective ways just because they happen to live near you?
What answer did you find in this inquiry?
What answer did you find in this inquiry?
Honestly I haven’t come to a conclusion. It sounds like you are well versed in EA principals and arguments so I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
From my (admittedly shallow) understanding of effective altruism I question how well we can define the ‘effectivness’ of an action. I worry it prioritizes quantifiable metrics that are easy to compare over more diffuse benefits such as connection and personal bonds that are more difficult to measure (but equally important). For example I suspect you would argue it’s more cost effective to buy rice from an international supplier and feed 100 people than to use the same money to build a neighborhood garden with supplies from local businesses and feed a handful of people. But in one case the money remains in the community and continues to do good while in the other it simply further enriches an international conglomerate.
In one case you build community bonds and create a place for people to come together while in the other you potentially undercut the local suppliers, reducing the food supply in an area in the long term.
This is obviously a contrived hypothetical but I’m hoping you can read it in good faith and try to understand a different perspective.
From my (admittedly shallow) understanding of effective altruism I question how well we can define the ‘effectivness’ of an action. I worry it prioritizes quantifiable metrics that are easy to compare over more diffuse benefits such as connection and personal bonds that are more difficult to measure (but equally important). For example I suspect you would argue it’s more cost effective to buy rice from an international supplier and feed 100 people than to use the same money to build a neighborhood garden with supplies from local businesses and feed a handful of people. But in one case the money remains in the community and continues to do good while in the other it simply further enriches an international conglomerate.
In one case you build community bonds and create a place for people to come together while in the other you potentially undercut the local suppliers, reducing the food supply in an area in the long term.
This is obviously a contrived hypothetical but I’m hoping you can read it in good faith and try to understand a different perspective.
I cannot think of a reason to prefer to help a neighbor over someone who is vastly more in need who is further away. I think that's the main thrust of the argument.
You have a better chance of knowing what would actually help the neighbor. That is, the odds of help actually helping are higher.
I am not saying "don't help those who are far away". But you can make a case for giving greater emphasis to helping those who are closer to you purely on effectiveness grounds.
I am not saying "don't help those who are far away". But you can make a case for giving greater emphasis to helping those who are closer to you purely on effectiveness grounds.
In my mind the arguments for it are
- by helping your neighbor you strengthen your own community, hopefully benefitting yourself and your family
- you don’t have the same understanding of the needs of a community further away. You won’t be able to directly observe the impact of your actions (positive or negative)
- you don’t have the same understanding of the needs of a community further away. You won’t be able to directly observe the impact of your actions (positive or negative)
> If you benefit from the improvement in your community is it some how less valuable?
Yes. Its less valuable by definition because you are subtracting value from the system for yourself in the form of increased social standing.
There is a reason that charity should be anonymous. Its not charity otherwise, its quid quo pro.
Yes. Its less valuable by definition because you are subtracting value from the system for yourself in the form of increased social standing.
There is a reason that charity should be anonymous. Its not charity otherwise, its quid quo pro.
I think your example is pretty much the definition of zero-sum thinking - why would a benefit to you automatically "subtract value from the system".
I would argue it's a positive sum transaction - the person you helped receives something of value, from a real human they know, strengthening the relationship between the two of you, others in the community see that and are encouraged to do the same, and the recipient feels a sense of obligation to at "pay it forward" any way they can leading to further "good works".
Have you really never received anything of value from someone who had no obligation to do so? Not even a lead on a new job, or an introduction to someone who helped your career, or a mentor? If so, do you really feel the situation would have been better if that information had arrived in an anonymous form?
I would argue it's a positive sum transaction - the person you helped receives something of value, from a real human they know, strengthening the relationship between the two of you, others in the community see that and are encouraged to do the same, and the recipient feels a sense of obligation to at "pay it forward" any way they can leading to further "good works".
Have you really never received anything of value from someone who had no obligation to do so? Not even a lead on a new job, or an introduction to someone who helped your career, or a mentor? If so, do you really feel the situation would have been better if that information had arrived in an anonymous form?
I've thought this too.
Versus cash, I imagine healthcare is nice because it's not like warlord/agent can seize/embezzle all the cataract surgeries or whatever.
But there are no actual "ones they are saving". Effective Altruists are concerned with unrealized future values, like people thousands of years in the future who don't yet exist.
An Effective Altruist is someone who would throw a current, existing person under a bus, if he believed that this would somehow cause three more people to exist sometime in the far future, or help speed up human colonization of the galaxy.
Have you looked into what EA is really about?
An Effective Altruist is someone who would throw a current, existing person under a bus, if he believed that this would somehow cause three more people to exist sometime in the far future, or help speed up human colonization of the galaxy.
Have you looked into what EA is really about?
Not true. Please explain this list of actually recommended problem areas which have impact today (as well as in the future):
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/cause-areas
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/cause-areas
It looks suspiciously like the result of someone registering a domain, putting up a server and populating a page. Could be wrong.
Ah yes, if you go to EA’s “official” site then click “Take Action” that’s where it’ll take you. This is as close as you’ll get to an “official” list of endorsed causes, and it’s nothing like what’s being described in this thread.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
Yes I know that. That only makes it worse.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It’s obvious you’ve done zero research into what EA actually advocates in practice. Lay off the memes and secondary sources for a bit.
I always feel like I’m taking crazy pills when I see how vitriolic the discussion around EA gets. I’m sure you can find some crazies in who adhere to EA in wacky ways (as with any other group), but the brunt of the focus of EA has always clearly been to do the most good per dollar, or to be effective with your altruism. Maybe a secondary belief is that you should donate 10% of your income to charity. These seem like obviously good things, to the point that I don’t understand how people can be so against while maintaining a straight face.
The idea itself is fine, but the people who are drawn to it are a weird bunch. It feels very culty too.
I’ll admit that’s a pretty fair criticism :)
Saying that detractors are upset with the idea of charity is reductive. I personally don't like it because it seems to attract self-aggrandizing navel gazers who don't have the nerve to have a lot of money without some justification as to why they need/deserve it, not because I disagree with the idea on paper. I imagine I'm not alone.
[deleted]
It's just people coping with guilt about not giving to charity honestly. That, and ad hominem attacks on the people involved. You see people giving kidneys away and there are still articles talking about how its selfish or misguided.
The movement kind of got co-opted by some strong personalities who somewhat went down their own rabbit hole of utilitarianism.
Also, SBF wasn't good optics.
Also, SBF wasn't good optics.
Did it get co-opted, or are you only exposed to the extremely online segment of EA that talks about AI and future generations and Roko's Basilisk?
From what I can tell, EA is still alive and well I the real world, donating bed nets to combat malaria and other very real, worldly tasks.
From what I can tell, EA is still alive and well I the real world, donating bed nets to combat malaria and other very real, worldly tasks.
Exactly. These people (the anti-EA’ers) are in too deep on the memes. It is absolutely hilarious seeing anti-EA’ers on this thread “pondering questions” about charity that are literally the exact questions posed by EA. EA produces extremely pragmatic answers and the anti-EAers get stuck at “hmm is it really so bad to give to people who live next door just because?”
Of course they cannot even write the answer they’re implicating because it’s laughable on its face, so they’re just here to “ponder” the questions, then accuse EA of navel gazing.
As you say, EA asks those same questions, gets to an answer that’s far less ridiculous than “my neighbors deserve more by virtue of being my neighbors,” then writes checks.
Of course they cannot even write the answer they’re implicating because it’s laughable on its face, so they’re just here to “ponder” the questions, then accuse EA of navel gazing.
As you say, EA asks those same questions, gets to an answer that’s far less ridiculous than “my neighbors deserve more by virtue of being my neighbors,” then writes checks.
[deleted]
For me it’s the unspoken assumption that “step 0” (attain wealth in the first place) is left as an exercise to the reader. A given. It’s all so self aggrandizing and tone deaf.
I kind of regret reading this article. It's very long and doesn't have all that much interesting information.
It starts with the author discovering that some charities are not effective, especially when rich people go to poor countries and try to do direct actions. Then it somehow uses this as an argument that trying to measure the effectiveness of charities is bad and that giving money to charities in general is bad because sometimes charities are mismanaged.
Half of the article is basically complaining that charities in general are sometimes ineffective or have unintended negative side effects (for example malaria bed nets being used for fishing).
Guess what - the fact that it's a difficult problem to tell how to do good is exactly why EA exists - to at least try and bring order into chaos. What's the alternative? The article just keeps complaining about collecting data and statistics and trying to estimate good by saying "but sometimes the estimates are wrong!", but it presents zero alternatives. It's basically just advocating against charity in general, saying that it should be the job of the governments. Or it's arguing that you people need to only support things they are emotionally invested in, because "unsentimental calculations" are evil.
The other half of the article is citing random billionaire's opinions on the world and complaining that they are self-important and weaving in lots of random things about the SBF trial for some reason.
There's some valid criticisms of effective altruism in the article, specifically: criticizing how they try to put a value on everything (even when it is a hard problem or not exact) and criticizing longtermism (because it's difficult to say whether to weigh the present or the future more). It also mentions the common discussion about doing direct action yourself versus spending more time working and donating more money. But I think those are already the obvious discussions about EA that everyone knows about.
It starts with the author discovering that some charities are not effective, especially when rich people go to poor countries and try to do direct actions. Then it somehow uses this as an argument that trying to measure the effectiveness of charities is bad and that giving money to charities in general is bad because sometimes charities are mismanaged.
Half of the article is basically complaining that charities in general are sometimes ineffective or have unintended negative side effects (for example malaria bed nets being used for fishing).
Guess what - the fact that it's a difficult problem to tell how to do good is exactly why EA exists - to at least try and bring order into chaos. What's the alternative? The article just keeps complaining about collecting data and statistics and trying to estimate good by saying "but sometimes the estimates are wrong!", but it presents zero alternatives. It's basically just advocating against charity in general, saying that it should be the job of the governments. Or it's arguing that you people need to only support things they are emotionally invested in, because "unsentimental calculations" are evil.
The other half of the article is citing random billionaire's opinions on the world and complaining that they are self-important and weaving in lots of random things about the SBF trial for some reason.
There's some valid criticisms of effective altruism in the article, specifically: criticizing how they try to put a value on everything (even when it is a hard problem or not exact) and criticizing longtermism (because it's difficult to say whether to weigh the present or the future more). It also mentions the common discussion about doing direct action yourself versus spending more time working and donating more money. But I think those are already the obvious discussions about EA that everyone knows about.
> But I think those are already the obvious discussions about EA that everyone knows about.
I assure you that everyone does not know about them. And more to the point, reading the EA forums, it does not appear that the EA community has even settled on any sort of strategy for addressing them; other than “hope we can minimize the issues until people run out of attention span and we can treat this as old news.”
I assure you that everyone does not know about them. And more to the point, reading the EA forums, it does not appear that the EA community has even settled on any sort of strategy for addressing them; other than “hope we can minimize the issues until people run out of attention span and we can treat this as old news.”
> The article just keeps complaining about collecting data and statistics and trying to estimate good by saying "but sometimes the estimates are wrong!", but it presents zero alternatives.
The article is pretty clear in its call for givewell (and things like it) to estimate both the good and the bad, and to publicly share the estimates for both.
They're not bringing order to chaos with their current methods.
The article is pretty clear in its call for givewell (and things like it) to estimate both the good and the bad, and to publicly share the estimates for both.
They're not bringing order to chaos with their current methods.
I had a hunch, came to the comments first, and found your summary. Thanks for that.
There's some detailed criticism of this article in the comments on the EA forum:
> The overwhelmingly thrust of Wenar's article -- from the opening jab about asking EAs "how many people they’ve killed", to the conditional I bolded above -- seems to be to frame charitable giving as a morally risky endeavor, in contrast to the implicit safety of just doing nothing and letting people die.
...
> (If he just wants to advocate for more GiveDirectly-style anti-paternalistic interventions that "shift our power to them", that seems fine but obviously doesn't justify the other 95% of the article.)
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/cfwxiG8ovaAA9us6t/...
And here's a link to GiveWell's comments on the article (that Wired sent them for review).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WfBvF7N4Z1VyQcqtQmqJPY59...
> The overwhelmingly thrust of Wenar's article -- from the opening jab about asking EAs "how many people they’ve killed", to the conditional I bolded above -- seems to be to frame charitable giving as a morally risky endeavor, in contrast to the implicit safety of just doing nothing and letting people die.
...
> (If he just wants to advocate for more GiveDirectly-style anti-paternalistic interventions that "shift our power to them", that seems fine but obviously doesn't justify the other 95% of the article.)
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/cfwxiG8ovaAA9us6t/...
And here's a link to GiveWell's comments on the article (that Wired sent them for review).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WfBvF7N4Z1VyQcqtQmqJPY59...
EA is basically Ethics for Assholes.
Basically it allows assholes who have a single minded focus on making money a way to salve their conscience by reducing morality to a cash flow problem and ignoring any of the other social and moral implications of their behavior.
Basically it allows assholes who have a single minded focus on making money a way to salve their conscience by reducing morality to a cash flow problem and ignoring any of the other social and moral implications of their behavior.
“These ideas aren’t wholly original to us or the effective altruism community. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, preached about a version of earning to give in the 18th century. He advocated the principles: “Gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can.” And he even caveated this advice with sensible constraints, saying in a sermon that we shouldn’t work so hard that we hurt ourselves and that we should “gain all we can without hurting our neighbour.””
“For this reason, many people think it’s our top recommendation for the majority of people. But it’s not.”
“Might you do harm in a high-earning career?
Yes, some high-earning careers can do a lot of harm. We don’t recommend taking careers you think might be harmful in order to donate.
First, if the harm done by the work offsets the good done by your donations — including both direct and indirect harms — then that’s clearly overall negative for the world and bad by any lights.
But even if you think the donations might outweigh the costs of a harmful career, we think doing harm “for the greater good” is almost never a good idea. And if you think you might be the exception, you’re almost certainly not. This is for many reasons, so we’ve written a separate article about why not to take a harmful career in order to do more good.”
“For this reason, many people think it’s our top recommendation for the majority of people. But it’s not.”
“Might you do harm in a high-earning career?
Yes, some high-earning careers can do a lot of harm. We don’t recommend taking careers you think might be harmful in order to donate.
First, if the harm done by the work offsets the good done by your donations — including both direct and indirect harms — then that’s clearly overall negative for the world and bad by any lights.
But even if you think the donations might outweigh the costs of a harmful career, we think doing harm “for the greater good” is almost never a good idea. And if you think you might be the exception, you’re almost certainly not. This is for many reasons, so we’ve written a separate article about why not to take a harmful career in order to do more good.”
> John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, preached about a version of earning to give in the 18th century. He advocated the principles
Yes, he did. However, his advocacy was in the context within the larger of Christian morality and inherited a lot from it. The modern version of effective altruism does not exist within a larger ethical/religious framework which makes it more prone to go wrong.
Yes, he did. However, his advocacy was in the context within the larger of Christian morality and inherited a lot from it. The modern version of effective altruism does not exist within a larger ethical/religious framework which makes it more prone to go wrong.
It's an interesting time when Stanford Professors are putting out weak mudslinging articles like this.
Note the difference: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-eff...
Note the difference: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-eff...
> The teachers gave your kids the pills this morning without asking you. By the next day your kids are feeling better—but how do you feel? How do you feel about the teachers and the superintendent? What do you think about those Chinese trillionaires, now bragging back home about how they’ve helped the poor foreigners?
Uh, I feel pretty happy about it? I'd also be somewhat annoyed at the superintendent, the one that actually did the scheduling if this reaction wasn't a total fluke. But much happier than annoyed.
I mean, you just told me the pill adds a month of life expectancy. Am I supposed to not think that's true a couple sentences later?
The way this analogy is explained is a mess.
Uh, I feel pretty happy about it? I'd also be somewhat annoyed at the superintendent, the one that actually did the scheduling if this reaction wasn't a total fluke. But much happier than annoyed.
I mean, you just told me the pill adds a month of life expectancy. Am I supposed to not think that's true a couple sentences later?
The way this analogy is explained is a mess.
Effective altruism = ineffective autism.
I don’t find anything offensive about carefully considering how to do good, or taking a longer term view of humanity.
I think the thing that is irritating about EA is that it often feels like this generation’s ‘post-colonial guilt’. Many people with the privilege to act on their EA sentiments are the beneficiaries of financial inequality, either via inheritance or VC froth, and can afford to absorb the risks.
To be honest, EA feels like church without the beardy cloud man, and IMO is a better use of the philosophy brain-trust than metaphysics, so I have no desire to see it fail. The cultish part is more a Silicon Valley thing than an EA thing.
I think the thing that is irritating about EA is that it often feels like this generation’s ‘post-colonial guilt’. Many people with the privilege to act on their EA sentiments are the beneficiaries of financial inequality, either via inheritance or VC froth, and can afford to absorb the risks.
To be honest, EA feels like church without the beardy cloud man, and IMO is a better use of the philosophy brain-trust than metaphysics, so I have no desire to see it fail. The cultish part is more a Silicon Valley thing than an EA thing.
[deleted]
I thought effective altruism was based on the work of Peter Singer. Like, as long as you have resources to spare, you are morally obligated to use those resources in the most effective way possible to help people and other living beings -- a perspective kind of aligned with Kropotkin's mutual aid. With Sam Bankman-Fried we're looking at the libertarian techbro version of that, which is basically "get rich first, then help people". Or, in the extreme case, "sure, I'd like to help, but I'm not rich enough to do so... effectively."
Just join Jane Street and be quiet already!
I won't speculate on why some people are so insistent that we must throw the baby out with the bathwater immediately, declare EA Dead, and forget it ever existed.