Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
I think the Effective Altruism movement really belies its own values and cause with the fact that one of its own funds is for supporting:> organizations that work on improving long-term outcomes for humanity. Grants will likely go to organizations that seek to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially those relating to advanced artificial intelligence. [1]Yes, an argument can be made that it's important to fund prevention of global catastrophes, as while they're unlikely compared to the immediate threat of malaria, they'll cause much greater damage, thus increasing risk. However, to consider artificial intelligence to be a potential global catastrophe at all, let alone the single one requiring extra funding, is mostly unfounded. We currently can barely even define what the actual risk is, let alone how to mitigate it.It's one thing to walk past homeless people in my city and not give them money, because I know that money could much more easily and effectively safe a life in malaria-ridden parts of the world. I think it's absolutely morally repugnant to walk past them and not give them money, because instead you're paying people to sit around thinking about AI.[1] https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/far-future