Giving on the Edge: Effective Altruism’s Post-SBF Comeback

by

The situation was incredibly grim for the philanthropic cause, as its main benefactor and primary advocate was found guilty on seven charges including fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering, facing a 25-year prison sentence.

Sam Bankman-Fried, the creator and leader of cryptocurrency platform FTX, was not only an ardent supporter but also a significant contributor to the growing philanthropic philosophy called Effective Altruism (EA). However, his fall from grace could potentially cause its collapse.

“Peter Singer, a renowned moral philosopher and former Princeton professor who is often referred to as the intellectual founder of Effective Altruism (EA), remembers feeling disheartened when a significant event occurred in fall 2022. He expressed that it was not only financially devastating due to the billions lost, but also damaged EA’s reputation.”

But Singer says EA has roared back with new relevance under a USAID-dismantling Trump presidency.

He states that the group is reorganizing, and recent events have underscored its significance more than ever.

Critics view EA as merely a passing trend, while its creators claim it represents a significant shift in philanthropy, moving away from lavish social events and more towards a data-driven, scientific approach. However, critics argue that EA still makes limited and peculiar decisions, disregarding systemic problems and the intricate human motivations behind giving, as a struggle for billions of dollars unfolds.

As a gaming enthusiast looking back to the late 2000s, I found myself part of a growing movement led by Singer and others, all driven by the principles of utilitarianism. This meant using statistical analysis to maximize positive impact for the most people – a concept that was made even more relatable by the enduring success of Michael Lewis’ book, “Moneyball”. Instead of supporting museum restorations or other seemingly altruistic but not critical causes, Electronic Arts (EA) started focusing on projects with a high return on investment, such as vaccine distribution and malaria net provision in developing regions. Even small donations could make a significant difference in saving lives, which was truly inspiring.

The movement gained traction through the generosity of Good Ventures, an organization that distributes funds to numerous Effective Altruism (EA) initiatives, led by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna. Organizations such as GiveWell and Open Philanthropy, which are funded by Moskovitz and operate on a metrics-driven model, also contribute to this expansion. The former recommends charities while the latter donates based on their impact. Additionally, entities like 80,000 Hours and The School for Moral Ambition aim to cultivate careers with the greatest altruistic potential. (Open Philanthropy’s ambitious goal is to provide a $50 donation that results in an additional year of improved health for each recipient.)

A significant advance came for EA (Effective Altruism) only a few months prior to SBF’s (Sam Bankman-Fried) collapse, with the release of William MacAskill’s book titled “What We Owe the Future.” In this work, the philosopher from Oxford, Scotland, introduced the concept of “longtermism,” which is a perspective that positions actions within a context that considers the welfare of billions of people yet to be born.

The book’s concepts were compared to EA’s data-driven approach towards social issues using a Venn diagram, which particularly struck a chord in Silicon Valley. In the spring of 2022, when MacAskill published his book, Elon Musk notably tweeted, “Definitely worth reading. This aligns closely with my beliefs.” (MacAskill and Toby Ord, another Oxford scholar, established the Centre for Effective Altruism, which is linked to EA, a network of organizations overlapping in scope.)

However, following the FTX crash, donations to Effective Altruism (EA) declined significantly. As a result of fewer contributions from Open Philanthropy in 2023, GiveWell distributed just $216 million that year, representing a decrease of 51% compared to the $439 million they disbursed in 2022.

Since then, Singer has observed an upward trend within the movement, pointing to a 2024 surge in charitable contributions at his organization, The Life You Can Save. He attributes this growth to a swift-action fund initiated by his group and Founders Pledge, which, following USAID’s cuts, has garnered approximately $50 million in fresh donations over the past few months. Neither Ord nor Elie Hassenfeld, CEO and co-founder of GiveWell, responded to requests for comment.

The turmoil surrounding FTX has sparked significant discussion, and this debate is evident even in publications such as The New York Times’ annual holiday Giving Guide. For instance, just a few weeks after the FTX incident, Ezra Klein penned an article titled “The Big Thing Effective Altruism (Still) Gets Right.” In it, he defended the movement’s fundamental approach of quantifying compassion as still valid, despite offering some constructive criticism. He acknowledged that GiveWell and the movement it represents do an outstanding job, and he found giving to such organizations certain of their effectiveness a satisfying experience.

However, over the last Christmas season, business journalist Emma Goldberg proposed a different viewpoint, questioning whether it’s appropriate to set aside charitable contributions for purposes beyond efficiency optimization. She suggested that such giving could help us find deeper purpose in life by extending our compassion towards others and fostering stronger connections within our communities.

Expressing her viewpoint, she stated that joining EA (Effective Altruism) might lead to disregarding human motivations in charitable giving and, in a way, serving as a justification for unbridled capitalism. In essence, it creates an opportunity for individuals to morally justify the accumulation of more wealth, on condition that some of it is donated.

Other critics say EA remains a constrictive philosophy with weird or even harmful outcomes.

Émile Torres, a philosopher from the Bay Area, points out that something might seem very convincing from afar, but the issue lies in its ability to be manipulated to support any predetermined outcome. While it may appear meticulous, it’s actually far from truthful.

As a passionate advocate, I echo Torres’ sentiments about the movement facing a reluctance to tackle underlying issues. A prime example is the Eastern Ugandan scenario where funds directed by EA were criticized by a local figure as merely prolonging the cycle of poverty. Instead, constructing a grain storage facility would have had a more enduring effect, according to this leader, than just transferring wealth temporarily without securing future livelihoods.

In the last 18 months, Torres argues that there has been a transition from addressing immediate global issues like poverty and animal welfare to focusing on AI safety, which could potentially impact countless individuals far into the future due to the assumption of ongoing tech advancements. This shift, Torres suggests, is an additional weakening of the focus on tangible goals of saving lives, as the abstract concept of longtermism gains more attention. “I’m extremely disappointed,” Torres expresses, “when considering a potential future with a billion digital entities, while real, existing beings are being ignored.

In Silicon Valley, the Effective Altruism (EA) movement has started to share similarities with Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “doomer” movement, which is concerned about the rapid advancement of AI – thus making EA a barrier against those who advocate for speeding up AI development, such as Sam Altman from OpenAI. The return of Altman’s leadership following a brief dismissal during Thanksgiving weekend 2023 was perceived as a significant win for the proponents of rapid AI advancement over the Effective Altruists.

The singer expresses a preference for attention to be given somewhat more to achievable objectives, such as addressing climate change, over AI safety concerns. However, he contends that the pessimistic viewpoint, often referred to within EA circles, isn’t as dominant as some might suggest. He clarifies, “It’s not the defining characteristic of the movement. I don’t think it even represents a majority within the movement.” He further adds, “Given the current state of global events, people are increasingly focusing on issues that directly impact the present day.

From my perspective as an admirer, when it comes to systematic factors like colonialism, he posits that if anyone could present quantifiable evidence of toppling the global capitalist structure and propose a viable replacement, the EA community would scrutinize that. However, history has demonstrated time and again that this system is remarkably robust. I personally lean towards advocating for reform rather than revolution.

It can be confusing for those not involved in the discussion, as both parties claim to act selflessly, yet the debate often appears hostile and every point seems convincing until a counterargument is presented. Ultimately, our assessment of the validity of the Effective Altruism (EA) movement might reveal more about our own biases than it does about EA itself.

As a concerned citizen, I often find myself pondering: Is the world, including poverty, merely a collection of mathematical equations waiting to be solved, or should we approach it more through emotions and experiences? After all, there’s certainly no lack of data to analyze. But is this cold, analytical approach truly capturing the essence of our complex world?

You can find this article in a special edition of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. Consider subscribing here.

Read More

2025-07-24 16:25