‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The evolution of effective altruism

71 points · 196 comments · bazzmt

  1. drywater2 · · focus · HN ↗
    EA sounds like an excuse for billionaires to continue being the opposite of altruist.
    1. mcv · · focus · HN ↗
      That's definitely how it comes across now. Especially with all the TESCREAL weirdness that gets attached to it. But originally, EA really was extremely altruist. Early pioneers were practically Francis of Assissi-style vow of poverty people, giving away the majority of their income to the worthiest cause they could find.

      But somewhere along the way it attracted the attention of tech bros, billionaires and AI believers, and the whole thing seems to have gotten corrupted way beyond recognition. I think it started by telling people that instead of becoming a volunteer, they could also become a stock trader and donate all of their income to fund a dozen volunteers. And once you've got that kind of money, well, isn't just donating 10% already pretty good? And then came the AI concerns, which mostly seem to have become a reason to hype up irresponsible AI use, rather than the opposite (note that both OpenAI and Anthropic were founded based on the concerns for the threat AI might pose to humanity), and then the Longtermist idea that the concerns of potentially trillions of humans in the very distant future should outweigh the concerns of the mere billions alive today, lead to basically an excuse not to help people today anymore. Also, all those millionaire and billionaire tech bros are still millionaires and billionaires. Is there any EA adherent who has given away that level of wealth?

      So while the poverty and altruism of the early pioneers was extremely inspiring, the current visible public face of EA is exactly the opposite.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.