4 ms·

So what's gonna happen to the effective altruists? Wasn't he the one bankrolling the movement?

sct202 4y ago
It will still go on. He wasn't the only one, but he definitely supercharged funding as of late. I think all the longtermism stuff that has come to prominence recently is a side-effect of too much money in EA trying to make up new causes that are magically more effective than philanthropy that currently exists.
- prologger 4y ago
  I mean I really don't get what they're about. Most of what I know about these guys seems to revolve around shuffling money around so it's not clear to me what exactly is effective or altruistic about what they're doing.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    Traditional metrics for charities only included efficiency metrics. Then there was a movement that said actually effectiveness is more important than efficiency even though it's harder to measure, and started trying to measure effectiveness (like Givewell, 80000 hours, etc...). It's called effective altruism because it focuses on effective giving(i.e. altruism).
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  How much of the actual EA funding is going to longtermist charities vs how much is going to your boring old malaria/infrastructure/de-worming/factory farming initiatives? I always thought the longtermist stuff was mostly because it was an easy way to criticize EA in a way that drove clicks.
hprotagonist 4y ago
with luck they’ll get their hands dirty, in a good way.
- prologger 4y ago
  Isn't the whole point that they work for mega-corps and then donate all the money instead of actually doing anything directly? I am pretty sure I read about this somewhere. I don't think effective altruists are the type to actually do anything other than go along with the status quo.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > work for mega-corps and then donate all the money instead of actually doing anything directly? Early on most effective altruists were working to earn money and fund important things. More recently, with the money from Open Philanthropy (Dustin Moskovitz, FB), FTX Foundation (SBF, FTX), and others there's been less need for money relative to need for doing things, so many of us have switched away from earning to give. Me included: https://www.jefftk.com/p/leaving-google-joining-the-nucleic-acid-observatory https://www.jefftk.com/p/leaving-google-joining-the-nucleic-... > do anything other than go along with the status quo EAs are overall pretty weird folks: there are a lot of criticisms you could make but that they're just going along with the status quo is a surprising one ;)
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    The whole point is you can fly to Africa and build wells. Which feels really good because you can see your impact. Or you can work as an investment banker and pay 100 Africans to build wells, which doesn't feel as good, but builds 100x as many wells and employs Africans.
- jefftk 4y ago
  I'd expect the opposite: if FTX's failure means the FTX foundation money is gone then there's more need for money on the margin and more EAs will choose to earn to give.
vasco 4y ago
I can't understand the effective altruist movement in a world of Modern Monetary Theory. When money means nothing and central banks can print infinite money, the only reasonable way to effect change is by donating directly to an extended hand on the street or actually physically helping, imo, but I'm open to changing my mind.
- ggreer 4y ago
  GiveWell explains their reasoning here[1]. For each of their top charities, they give a measure of cost-effectiveness and explain why they believe the charity has such a high impact.[2] For a decade, one of GiveWell's top charities was GiveDirectly[3], which simply gives your money to poor people in developing countries. In August, GiveWell changed their evaluation criteria to prioritize charities with funding gaps.[4] This bumped GiveDirectly out of their top charities, along with some deworming programs. GiveWell still thinks these charities are extremely effective, just not as much as their new list of top charities. 1. https://www.givewell.org/giving101 https://www.givewell.org/giving101 2. https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates#Impact_metrics_for_grants_to_GiveWells_top_charities_in_2021 https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates#Impact_metrics_for... 3. https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly/November-2020-version https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly/November-20... 4. https://blog.givewell.org/2022/08/17/changes-to-top-charity-criteria/ https://blog.givewell.org/2022/08/17/changes-to-top-charity-...
ggreer 4y ago
The effective altruism movement has been around for over a decade. SBF's financing has been very beneficial, but EA isn't dependent on one financier or organization. At this point it's like moneyball: a concept that can be used by anyone.

It will still go on. He wasn't the only one, but he definitely supercharged funding as of late. I think all the longtermism stuff that has come to prominence recently is a side-effect of too much money in EA trying to make up new causes that are magically more effective than philanthropy that currently exists.

prologger 4y ago
I mean I really don't get what they're about. Most of what I know about these guys seems to revolve around shuffling money around so it's not clear to me what exactly is effective or altruistic about what they're doing.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Traditional metrics for charities only included efficiency metrics. Then there was a movement that said actually effectiveness is more important than efficiency even though it's harder to measure, and started trying to measure effectiveness (like Givewell, 80000 hours, etc...). It's called effective altruism because it focuses on effective giving(i.e. altruism).
JamesBarney 4y ago
How much of the actual EA funding is going to longtermist charities vs how much is going to your boring old malaria/infrastructure/de-worming/factory farming initiatives? I always thought the longtermist stuff was mostly because it was an easy way to criticize EA in a way that drove clicks.

hprotagonist 4y ago

with luck they’ll get their hands dirty, in a good way.

prologger 4y ago
Isn't the whole point that they work for mega-corps and then donate all the money instead of actually doing anything directly? I am pretty sure I read about this somewhere. I don't think effective altruists are the type to actually do anything other than go along with the status quo.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > work for mega-corps and then donate all the money instead of actually doing anything directly? Early on most effective altruists were working to earn money and fund important things. More recently, with the money from Open Philanthropy (Dustin Moskovitz, FB), FTX Foundation (SBF, FTX), and others there's been less need for money relative to need for doing things, so many of us have switched away from earning to give. Me included: https://www.jefftk.com/p/leaving-google-joining-the-nucleic-acid-observatory https://www.jefftk.com/p/leaving-google-joining-the-nucleic-... > do anything other than go along with the status quo EAs are overall pretty weird folks: there are a lot of criticisms you could make but that they're just going along with the status quo is a surprising one ;)
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  The whole point is you can fly to Africa and build wells. Which feels really good because you can see your impact. Or you can work as an investment banker and pay 100 Africans to build wells, which doesn't feel as good, but builds 100x as many wells and employs Africans.
jefftk 4y ago
I'd expect the opposite: if FTX's failure means the FTX foundation money is gone then there's more need for money on the margin and more EAs will choose to earn to give.

vasco 4y ago

I can't understand the effective altruist movement in a world of Modern Monetary Theory. When money means nothing and central banks can print infinite money, the only reasonable way to effect change is by donating directly to an extended hand on the street or actually physically helping, imo, but I'm open to changing my mind.

ggreer 4y ago
GiveWell explains their reasoning here[1]. For each of their top charities, they give a measure of cost-effectiveness and explain why they believe the charity has such a high impact.[2] For a decade, one of GiveWell's top charities was GiveDirectly[3], which simply gives your money to poor people in developing countries. In August, GiveWell changed their evaluation criteria to prioritize charities with funding gaps.[4] This bumped GiveDirectly out of their top charities, along with some deworming programs. GiveWell still thinks these charities are extremely effective, just not as much as their new list of top charities. 1. https://www.givewell.org/giving101 https://www.givewell.org/giving101 2. https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates#Impact_metrics_for_grants_to_GiveWells_top_charities_in_2021 https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates#Impact_metrics_for... 3. https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly/November-2020-version https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly/November-20... 4. https://blog.givewell.org/2022/08/17/changes-to-top-charity-criteria/ https://blog.givewell.org/2022/08/17/changes-to-top-charity-...

ggreer 4y ago

The effective altruism movement has been around for over a decade. SBF's financing has been very beneficial, but EA isn't dependent on one financier or organization. At this point it's like moneyball: a concept that can be used by anyone.