#467 — EA, AI, and the End of Work

Sam Harris's 10% Pledge Inspired Thousands, Raising Over $30 Million for Effective Charities

William MacAskill highlights the remarkable growth of the 10% giving pledge movement, particularly among members of "Giving What We Can." Year-on-year, there has been a 20 to 30% increase in people committing to donate 10% of their income. MacAskill notes that following Sam Harris's public embrace of the 10% pledge on his podcast, the impact has been significant: there are now 1,200 additional people who have taken the 10% pledge through this influence, amounting to over $30 million redirected to effective charities.

10% Pledge Saves Lives Through Effective Health and Development Donations

MacAskill emphasizes the tangible results of these donations, explaining that thousands of lives have been saved through targeted support of highly effective charities, particularly in health and development sectors. The redirected funds have a direct impact on initiatives that address pressing global challenges.

10% Pledge Creates Psychological and Behavioral Shift in Charitable Giving

Sam Harris describes a profound personal transformation resulting from his commitment to the 10% giving pledge. By deciding in advance to donate a ...

Effective altruism (EA) channels attention and resources toward causes that offer the greatest measurable benefit. Three key domains dominate current EA priorities: global health, animal welfare (especially in factory farming), and the reduction of existential risks from pandemics and advanced AI.

Global Health in Effective Altruism: Cost-Effective, Evidence-Backed Life-Saving Interventions

Global health and development attract the majority of effective altruist philanthropy due to the evidence that money goes further in low-income regions. William MacAskill highlights that high-quality research, including randomized controlled trials, demonstrates that certain health interventions have saved hundreds of millions of lives over the past 50 years at a fraction of the cost spent by wealthy nations on similar outcomes. Even skeptics like Bill Easterly admit the enormous, net-positive impact of global health work.

Sam Harris references a Lancet study that warns dismantling global health aid could cause 14 million avoidable deaths from infectious disease in just five years, with 4.5 million being children under five. Even if those projections are greatly reduced, the numbers remain staggering—demonstrating the scale and efficiency of these interventions. MacAskill notes that organizations like GiveWell estimate that donations to top-rated charities have saved over 340,000 lives at a cost of about $5,000 per life, whereas in the U.S. a similar amount might only extend a life by a single month. These numbers reveal the enormous differential value of aid given where needs and opportunities for cost-effective improvement are greatest.

Animal Welfare in Factory Farms

EA’s focus on animal suffering targets the massive scale and intensity of factory farming. MacAskill notes that roughly 90 billion animals are raised and slaughtered annually under inhumane conditions. Effective altruist organizations have achieved significant change by campaigning for major food retailers and restaurant chains to shift from caged to cage-free egg production. About 92% of these commitments have been fulfilled, meaning that in the U.S. three billion chickens every year now experience markedly improved living conditions compared to full cage confinement. These positive changes for billions of animals have been secured with tens of millions of dollars invested in strategic advocacy, illustrating EA’s commitment to tractable, high-impact action for non-human suffering.

Reducing Existential Risks From Pandemics and Advanced AI Is Vital, as Even Rare Catastrophic Events Could Devastate Humanity's Future

The reduction of existential risks—catastrophic threats that could endanger the long-term future of humanity—has become a growing priority for effective altruists. Among these, pandemic preparedness and advanced AI warrant special focus.

Effective Altruists Advocate Modest Investments in Pandemic Preparedness to Prevent Huge Future Losses

MacAskill asserts that even modest investments could sharply reduce pandemic risks. Suggested measures include funding mask stockpiles, deploying sterilizing lighting, and monitoring wastewater for early detection of outbreaks. These interventions can prevent both ordinary and engineered pandemics, as it is becoming easier and less expensive for individuals or ...

The Effective Altruism (EA) movement faces a range of controversies and challenges, from criticism of its narrow metrics of effectiveness to the fallout from high-profile scandals.

Critics Say Effective Altruism's Focus on Measurable Impacts Overlooks Local Issues and Intangible Flourishing

Sam Harris raises concerns about the way EA defines and measures "effectiveness." He points out that the focus on what can be easily quantified can blind effective altruists to significant but hard-to-measure interventions. For example, a hypothetical project that could have influenced public figures or podcasters and changed political outcomes might be overlooked by the movement because its impacts aren't neatly measurable. Harris warns that this preoccupation with quantifiable results means many valuable causes—especially those involving broad human flourishing or deeper societal improvements—fall off the movement's radar. He argues that EA tends to focus discussions on mitigating suffering and risks at the expense of thinking about unactualized positive possibilities, thus underweighting the pursuit of greater human flourishing.

William MacAskill agrees that many fields, like medicine, focus on restoring normal function rather than striving for exceptional well-being. He believes it's important to also seek out ways to improve human life beyond merely avoiding suffering.

Concerns That a Focus on Measurable Effectiveness May Lead Effective Altruists to Dismiss Valuable but Hard-To-quantify Causes

Harris gives further examples, such as EA's bias toward global health and existential risks—areas where the impact can be calculated—arguing this can mean that valuable, less easily measured causes are dismissed or ignored.

Effective Altruism Criticized As too Demanding or Contrary to Common Morals

Critics also argue that EA’s core arguments can seem too demanding or disconnected from common sense. Harris points out that focusing on the suffering of non-human animals like shrimp—or even digital minds as AI advances—can alienate supporters who find such debates detached from the lived experiences and emotional intuitions of ordinary people. He notes that when philosophers claim the mistreatment of shrimp may be humanity’s worst atrocity due to the scale of suffering, or when some push for vegan interventions in the natural world, it risks making the whole movement seem absurd.

Similarly, the idea that future digital minds could suffer, and that our current behavior should be weighed against their hypothetical well-being, presents an emotional and intellectual hurdle for most people. Harris worries that taking such highly abstract or "weird" ethical stances may prompt some to disengage from EA altogether, seeing it as ethically unmoored or impossible to live by.

William MacAskill, while defending the seriousness with which EA handles unconventional ideas, acknowledges that not everyone needs to embrace the label or the entirety of the movement’s thinking. He suggests individuals might benefit from adopting parts of effective altruism without taking on all the baggage and stresses the importance of wide-ranging and intellectually serious debate, even about “weird” or esoteric notions.

Scandal: FTX Collapse, Sam Bankman-Fried's Impact on Effect ...