Timnit Gebru (@timnitGebru) adds another nail in the coffin of effective altruism (EA) with her piece for WIRED: https://www.wired.com/story/effective-altruism-artificial-intelligence-sam-bankman-fried/

For me, this follows »The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?« by Linda Kinstler: https://www.economist.com/1843/2022/11/15/the-good-delusion-has-effective-altruism-broken-bad

And »Against longtermism« by Émile P Torres: https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo

Effective Altruism Is Pushing a Dangerous Brand of ‘AI Safety’

This philosophy—supported by tech figures like Sam Bankman-Fried—fuels the AI research agenda, creating a harmful system in the name of saving humanity

WIRED
@bjornrust @timnitGebru I'm very confused. It all feels like novlang to me. Isn't AI safety about looking at bias and privacy issues, explainable AI and interpretability? I never heard about effective altruism before and I'm not sure I get what it is. But why solve hypothetical future problems if we don't solve current ones.
@miaanastacio @bjornrust @timnitGebru
Originally, at least, EA was the ideas that you should give where it does the most good -- like giving to the poor via efficient charities, rather than to your church or college -- and that many people (like techies) would do more good earning a lot of money and giving it away than by trying to act as non-profit volunteers themselves. Half a Google salary can support several volunteers or help very many of the global poor.