> Even if you were right that AI research is only as good as the average non-EA-endorsed charity No, my point is that funding a company that sells closed-sourc

> Even if you were right that AI research is only as good as the average non-EA-endorsed charity No, my point is that funding a company that sells closed-source text and image generation APIs in partnership with Microsoft in the hope this will prevent cyberpunk is a much worse use of philanthropic funds than a typical aid agency that indulges in all the stuff GiveWell frowns on (not doing RCTs to measure the nutrition benefit of feeding the hungry, doing "donor illusion" because it's an extremely cost effective and considerably-more-honest-than-OpenAI way of attracting support etc.) Most interventions not classed as "highly effective" have more plausible claims to effectiveness than some EA darlings So paying less attention to certain EA arguments will, ironically, result in more effective donations. Now I'm aware that EA is a diverse movement and some people give all their money to malaria nets and are doubtful of some of the "longtermist" causes (and EAs make perfectly well-reasoned and well-evidenced arguments for malaria nets, although they're not the only ones making them). But that seems like a particularly good reason not to blog about how sceptics should shut up and donate their own money to their own causes rather than pointing out issues with the EA movement...