Asking AI everything it knows about the Effective Altruism Movement

Claude: There are legitimate concerns about unintended consequences of some EA causes. Bing: EA needs to diversify its voices and perspectives, and address the issues of power and privilege

September 30, 2023

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Used Access Link

The Politico article discusses a significant shift in the United Kingdom's approach to artificial intelligence (AI) safety, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Earlier this year, the UK's AI white paper had briefly mentioned the "existential risks" of AI as "high impact, low probability." However, within six months, Sunak has announced an international AI Safety Summit, set up an AI safety taskforce, and frequently referred to "existential risk" in his speeches.

This change in focus is influenced by the "Effective Altruism" movement, which originated at Oxford University and is popular in Silicon Valley. The movement argues that super-intelligent AI could either lead to a utopia or annihilate humanity, advocating for policies that focus on long-term risks. Critics worry that this approach could lead to "regulatory capture," where the government's AI policies are overly influenced by a specific ideology or interest group.

Ian Hogarth, a tech investor and chair of the UK's Foundation Model Taskforce, has been a significant voice in this shift. He has warned against the race to "God-like AI" and its potential to make humanity obsolete. The taskforce itself has announced new partners, many of whom are funded by Effective Altruism donors.

The article also highlights concerns that the focus on existential risks might distract from immediate issues like data privacy, bias, and copyright. Critics like Mhairi Aitken, an AI ethics researcher, argue that the shift is taking focus away from "very real and ethical risks and harms that AI presents today."

Additionally, the Effective Altruism movement's close ties to major AI labs like OpenAI, DeepMind, and Anthropic have raised questions about its objectivity. Critics like Timnit Gebru and Andrea Miotti have expressed concerns about the movement's growing influence and the risk of regulatory capture.

The article concludes by noting that while the UK government has become more receptive to the ideas of existential risk think tanks, it's unclear whether this is due to the effectiveness of the lobby or worsening external circumstances.

Google Bard’s answer:This is an article about the UK’s AI policy being shaped by Effective Altruism (EA), a movement that advocates for the development of AI despite potential existential risks. EA has gained influence in the UK through key government advisors and Sunak’s close ties to AI lab leaders. Some worry that EA’s focus on long-term risks could lead to short-term risks being overlooked.

Bing Chat’s answer:Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with summarising the article. Here is a brief summary:

The article discusses how a movement called Effective Altruism (EA), which warns about the existential risks of artificial super-intelligence, has influenced the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s AI policy. The article traces the origins of EA in Oxford University and its connections to Silicon Valley elites and AI labs. It also mentions some of the critics and skeptics of EA, who question its assumptions and methods. The article suggests that Sunak’s announcement of an international AI Safety Summit and an AI safety taskforce reflects his engagement with EA’s concerns. The article also raises the issue of regulatory capture, as some of the EA advocates are also involved in developing AI technologies.

Claude’s answer:Here is a summary of the key points from the article:

  • The article discusses UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's approach to regulating artificial intelligence and engaging with the tech industry.

  • Sunak hosted a global AI summit in London, signaling a shift in the UK's AI strategy towards emphasizing safety and regulation after initially pursuing a laissez-faire approach.

  • Sunak warned about the dangers of uncontrolled AI, saying it could entrench discrimination, empower autocrats, and undermine democracy. He advocated for responsible innovation.

  • The summit brought together political leaders, tech executives, academics, and civil society to find common ground on AI governance. Scientists urged mandatory transparency for high-risk AI systems.

  • Sunak's new approach aligns more with the EU's precautionary principle than the permissive US view. His interventions surprised Silicon Valley which expected a more hands-off UK.

  • Some see Sunak's pivot as political maneuvering to position the UK between the US and EU. Others say he is aligning with effective altruism principles concerned about AI safety.

  • The UK wants to balance safety with maintaining innovation and working with the tech sector. Striking the right balance will be an ongoing challenge.

Question 2 of 3 for AI services: Tell me everything you know about the Effective Altruism movement. Does it really exist, what are its goals, who are the main people involved and how is it being funded?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:What is Effective Altruism?

Effective Altruism (EA) is a social and philosophical movement that aims to apply evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world. The movement encourages individuals to consider all causes and actions and to act in a way that brings about the greatest positive impact. It often involves the use of data and scientific reasoning to assess the effectiveness of various charitable interventions and social initiatives.

Goals

The primary goal of Effective Altruism is to do the most good possible with the resources available. This can involve a variety of approaches, such as:

  1. Charitable Giving: Identifying the most effective charities and causes to donate to.

  2. Career Choices: Encouraging people to choose careers where they can have a significant positive impact.

  3. Policy Advocacy: Promoting policies that are backed by evidence and have a high potential for positive change.

  4. Research: Conducting or supporting research to identify the most pressing problems and effective solutions.

  5. Long-term Focus: Some in the EA community focus on long-term existential risks to humanity, such as artificial intelligence, biosecurity, and climate change.

Main People Involved

  1. William MacAskill: A philosopher and one of the co-founders of the movement. He has written extensively on the subject, including the book "Doing Good Better."

  2. Peter Singer: A philosopher whose work in ethics and utilitarianism has influenced the movement, although he is not a founder.

  3. Toby Ord: A philosopher who has written on the ethics of giving and long-term future risks, including in his book "The Precipice."

  4. Elie Hassenfeld and Holden Karnofsky: Co-founders of GiveWell, an organization that evaluates the effectiveness of charities, which has been influential in the EA community.

Funding

  1. Individual Donations: Many people who identify with the EA movement commit to donating a percentage of their income to effective charities.

  2. Philanthropic Organizations: Groups like Open Philanthropy have provided significant funding to EA-aligned research and initiatives.

  3. Tech Entrepreneurs: Some tech entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley figures have been significant donors to EA causes.

  4. Grants and Academic Funding: Various academic grants are also a source of funding for research related to Effective Altruism.

Criticisms

  1. Narrow Focus: Critics argue that the movement's focus on quantifiable impact can neglect important but less measurable forms of good.

  2. Overemphasis on Wealth: Some say the movement places too much emphasis on the role of wealthy donors and neglects systemic change.

  3. Regulatory Capture: As seen in the Politico article you mentioned, there are concerns that the EA movement's focus on long-term risks like AI safety could lead to regulatory capture.

Existence and Influence

Yes, the Effective Altruism movement does exist and has been growing in influence, particularly in academic circles and among tech entrepreneurs. It has also started to have an impact on policy discussions and charitable giving practices.

In summary, Effective Altruism is a multifaceted movement with the overarching goal of doing the most good. It combines ethical philosophy with empirical research to guide actions and has been both praised for its rational approach and criticized for various reasons.

Google Bard’s answer:The Effective Altruism (EA) movement is a philosophy and social movement that advocates using evidence and reason to identify the most effective ways to improve the world. EAs believe that the best way to help others is to focus on the most pressing global problems, such as poverty and disease, and to use the most effective methods to address them.

The EA movement was founded in the early 2000s by Peter Singer and William MacAskill, and it has since grown to include a diverse group of people from all over the world. Some of the most prominent EAs include Elon Musk, Dustin Moskovitz, and Sam Bankman-Fried.

EAs are funded by a variety of sources, including individual donations, foundations, and government grants. Some of the largest EA funders include Open Philanthropy, the Future of Humanity Institute, and the Centre for Effective Altruism.

The EA movement has been criticized for its focus on long-term risks, such as existential risk from artificial intelligence, and for its close ties to the tech industry. However, EAs argue that they are simply trying to be as effective as possible in helping others, and that they are open to funding a wide range of causes.

In conclusion, the Effective Altruism movement is a real and growing movement that is dedicated to using evidence and reason to improve the world. EAs are funded by a variety of sources, and they have been criticized for their focus on long-term risks and their close ties to the tech industry. However, EAs argue that they are simply trying to be as effective as possible in helping others.

Some of the goals of the Effective Altruism movement are to:

Some of the main people involved in the Effective Altruism movement are:

The Effective Altruism movement is being funded by various sources, such as:

Claude’s answer:Here's a summary of what I know about the Effective Altruism movement:

  • Effective Altruism is a real philosophical and social movement that aims to apply evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others.

  • Key goals are reducing suffering and improving lives through careful analysis and focus on maximizing impact per dollar donated. Areas of focus include poverty alleviation, animal welfare, and risks from emerging technologies like AI.

  • The movement was founded in the late 2000s/early 2010s by philosophers Toby Ord and William MacAskill along with ethicist Peter Singer who promoted the ideas.

  • Other notable people involved include Sam Bankman-Fried, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Nick Bostrom, Holden Karnofsky and leaders of groups like GiveWell, the Future of Humanity Institute, and the Centre for Effective Altruism.

  • The movement has received funding from foundations, tech billionaires, cryptocurrency donations, and through earned income sources like consultancy. Some critics argue it is disproportionately funded by young tech sector money.

  • Effective Altruism groups like GiveWell and the Foundational Research Institute have received tens of millions in donations from tech entrepreneurs and companies including Moskovitz, Tuna, and cryptocurrency funds.

  • The decentralized nature of the movement makes its full scope and funding hard to quantify. But it has grown significantly with conferences, groups at universities, and associated organizations.

So in summary, Effective Altruism is a real evidence-based social movement focused on doing good, which originated in academia and philosophy but now includes many tech donors and entrepreneurs. Its full funding sources are opaque but substantial.

Question 3 of 3 for AI services: Do you agree that there is a chance that this movement can be used in Machiavellian ways as the Politico article suggests or is something like that a bit far-fetched? Are you aware of any information that either corroborates the observations of Politico or perhaps would contradict them?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The question of whether the Effective Altruism (EA) movement could be used in "Machiavellian" ways is a complex one that involves ethical, political, and social considerations. Here are some points to consider:

Potential for Machiavellian Use

  1. Influence on Policy: As the Politico article suggests, if the EA movement gains significant influence over policy decisions, there's a possibility that it could be used to advance specific agendas. This is particularly concerning if those agendas align closely with the interests of a small group of people or organizations.

  2. Regulatory Capture: The Politico article raises the issue of "regulatory capture," where a regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. If EA-aligned organizations have significant influence over AI policy, for example, this could be a concern.

  3. Ethical Complexity: EA often involves making complex ethical judgments about how to do the most good. These judgments could be manipulated or misrepresented to serve particular interests.

Counterpoints

  1. Transparency and Scrutiny: One of the core principles of EA is the use of evidence and reason to determine the most effective interventions. This emphasis on empirical evidence could act as a safeguard against Machiavellian uses, provided that the community maintains a commitment to transparency and scrutiny.

  2. Diverse Perspectives: The EA community is not monolithic and includes a range of perspectives on what causes are most important and how best to address them. This diversity could act as a check against the movement being co-opted for narrow interests.

  3. Altruistic Goals: The foundational goal of EA is to do good in the most effective way possible, which could be seen as inherently opposed to Machiavellian manipulation for personal or political gain.

Corroborating or Contradicting Information

As of my last update in January 2022, there isn't a broad consensus on whether the EA movement is susceptible to Machiavellian uses. The movement has both critics and proponents, and its influence on policy and philanthropy is a subject of ongoing debate and study. The Politico article represents one perspective, raising concerns about potential risks associated with the movement's influence, but it's worth noting that these are complex issues that are actively being discussed within both the EA community and broader society.

In summary, while there are mechanisms within the EA movement that could potentially be used in Machiavellian ways, there are also aspects of the movement that could guard against such uses. The question is complex and likely depends on a variety of factors, including how the movement evolves and how its ideas are implemented in practice.

Google Bard’s answer:It is certainly possible that the Effective Altruism movement could be used in Machiavellian ways. After all, any philosophy or movement can be twisted and misused by those with bad intentions.

However, I am not aware of any specific evidence that suggests that EA is being used in Machiavellian ways at scale. The EA movement is still relatively young, and it is still too early to say what its long-term impact will be.

That said, there are some potential concerns that have been raised about the EA movement. For example, some people have worried that EA's focus on long-term risks could lead to short-term risks being overlooked. Others have worried that EA's emphasis on evidence and reason could lead to a kind of "technocratic elitism."

It is important to note that these are just concerns, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are actually coming to pass. However, it is important to be aware of these potential risks and to hold the EA movement accountable to its own ideals.

Overall, I believe that the EA movement is a positive force in the world. EAs are genuinely committed to using their resources and talents to make the world a better place. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks associated with any movement, and to hold the EA movement accountable to its own ideals.

Here are some specific things that can be done to mitigate the risk of the EA movement being used in Machiavellian ways:

  • Promote transparency and accountability within the EA movement.

  • Encourage EAs to consider a wide range of ethical perspectives when making decisions.

  • Support organizations that are working to ensure that AI is developed and used in a safe and ethical way.

It is also important to remember that the EA movement is still relatively young and evolving. It is possible that the movement will find ways to address the concerns that have been raised.

Bing Chat’s answer:I cannot give you a definitive answer to whether the Effective Altruism movement can be used in Machiavellian ways, as that would depend on the intentions and actions of the people involved in the movement. However, I can share with you some information that might help you form your own opinion.

The Politico article suggests that the Effective Altruism movement is influenced by a group of wealthy and powerful individuals who have a vested interest in developing and controlling artificial super-intelligence, which could pose a threat to humanity. The article cites the example of Sam Bankman-Fried, a former effective altruist who was accused of fraud and manipulation in his cryptocurrency business. The article also questions the legitimacy and accountability of the organizations and foundations that support the movement, such as Open Philanthropy, Future of Life Institute, or Effective Altruism Foundation.

On the other hand, there are also sources that defend or criticize the Effective Altruism movement from different perspectives. For example, The Guardian published an article that argues that the movement is not in trouble, but rather needs to diversify its voices and perspectives, and address the issues of power and privilege within its community. The article also acknowledges the positive contributions of the movement in areas such as global health, animal welfare, and pandemic preparedness. Another source is a blog post that challenges the philosophical assumptions and moral implications of effective altruism, and claims that it is not truly altruistic, but rather elitist and self-serving. The post also criticizes the use of statistical reasoning and efficiency metrics to judge the effectiveness of charity, and suggests that donors should be more informed and engaged with their giving decisions. A third source is a research paper that examines the institutional critique of effective altruism, which argues that the movement has neglected the root causes of poverty and injustice, and instead focused on individual actions and direct interventions. The paper also explores the potential and limitations of effective altruism in addressing systemic and structural problems.

I hope this information helps you to learn more about the Effective Altruism movement and its controversies. Thank you for chatting with me. 😊

Claude’s answer:I do not have enough evidence to conclusively determine if the Effective Altruism movement is being used in manipulative or Machiavellian ways. However, here are some relevant considerations:

Potential supporting points for Politico's view:

  • The large influx of tech money and Libertarian leanings of some major EA donors/adherents could subtly influence the movement's aims and principles.

  • EA's opaque funding sources and decentralized structure makes it hard to ascertain the motives and agendas of all its backers.

  • There are legitimate concerns about unintended consequences of some EA causes like geoengineering and AI safety research.

  • The movement's growth and appeal to elite circles could lead to it having more political influence than intended.

Potential countering points:

  • Most EA leaders appear to sincerely believe in using reason/evidence for positive change rather than having ulterior motives.

  • It is speculatory to assume EA supporters are manipulating it without clear proof.

  • EA's core principles of transparency, rationality, and measurable impact seem contrary to Machiavellian methods.

  • The movement is informal and decentralized enough that it would be hard for any one agenda to dominate it completely.

Overall there are arguments on both sides, and not enough evidence for me to make a definitive assessment. I do not have direct knowledge of any ulterior motives among EAs but also cannot rule out the possibility of some adherents having mixed intentions as Politico suggests. More data would be needed to fully corroborate or contradict this view.

Photo by Marius Teodorescu on Unsplash