Effective altruism seeks to answer AI criticism

The effective altruism movement is trying to explain itself more clearly as its links to artificial intelligence safety work draw criticism from the Trump administration, conservative media and some Silicon Valley figures.

The movement's founding idea is to donate money or time to major causes as effectively as possible. It has close ties to the AI community and counts managing AI risks among its priorities, alongside causes such as global health, development, climate change and animal welfare.

Effective altruism has faced accusations of cult-like behavior and alarmism. The New York Post called it a "wacky cult," the Daily Caller called it "The AI Doomsday Cartel," and a White House memo accused it of preferring saving "shrimp over families." David Sacks, a venture capitalist and adviser to President Donald Trump, argued that organizations tied to effective altruism are part of a "Doomer Industrial Complex" pushing for tougher AI regulation.

The movement has influenced researchers and staff at AI companies including Anthropic and OpenAI. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei is considered a key figure in its early days, although he now distances himself from the movement.

Zachary Robinson, head of the Centre for Effective Altruism, said the movement's ideas are "just strange enough" that people sometimes misinterpret them and that supporters could better explain how they approach hard questions and tradeoffs.

The movement was damaged by the collapse of cryptocurrency platform FTX and the fraud conviction of its founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who had been one of effective altruism's most visible figures. Robinson said attendance at the EA Global conference in New York in mid-October showed the movement was now "on an up."

Effective altruism has no leader or official spokesperson. Sjir Hoeijmakers, head of the charity platform Giving What We Can, said that can mean "sometimes the story doesn't get told." Robinson said AI safety currently gets the most emphasis, but global health and development have received more money for many years.