Explain how you used ChatGPT or other AI tool(s) to help for this HW’s update to your project, or note if it wasn’t used.
Continue to develop the project, as we build it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up another 350 words or more (per person if a group project) of new content if your project is a paper that must be written from scratch (for example if it is about yourself). If you are using an automatic text generator to help write it it would probably be quite a bit more than that amount of words. If the progress was code development or website creation, give the new code. If slides, paste the new text from the new slides into your blog and describe any images or graphics. If something else, explain specifically what you did, being sure to give examples if that makes sense. Label this HW consistently as in this example. List any sources you used, such as websites or pages, ChatGPT or other tools, books, or whatever it might be. This takes some effort and it counts as part of your work. If your project is not a paper, explain what you did on your blog. For team projects, focus on your own activities although you can also discuss the overall effort to provide some context. Explain and give evidence (for example, if a web site, you could provide a link to it; if software, give the code; if a skit, give some of the script or list rehearsal or meeting times; if artwork, provide an image showing its status, etc.). If you’re not sure what to do, see me or send me an email and I will try to suggest something.

Answer:

For this assignment, I used Chat GPT to help find the information that I then used in my essay.

Criticism

Effective altruism has faced its share of criticism. Critics point out that cost-benefit calculations can neglect important factors that aren’t included in the analysis. In addition, they argue that the most effective institutions for social change usually aren’t charities but rather public services. The economist Daron Acemoglu points out that deemphasizing these public services in favor of charities can erode trust in governments and discourage participation in politics which can exacerbate these problems.

Furthermore, while EA concerns itself with optimizing the task of giving it does not explicitly address the systemic causes underlying problems. For instance, if I were to donate to a charity to alleviate poverty, I may find that I have caused positive changes in the world but it’s unlikely I’ve addressed the underlying causes of that poverty. This issue is further compounded when attempting to give money at scale. When large amounts of money are donated to a particular cause, such as anti-malaria mosquito nets, there are diminishing returns to that intervention since eventually everyone who can be helped by one already has one.

EAs respond to this by pointing out that they do promote systemic change via politics in numerous ways. They would also say that the choice between politics and charity is a false dichotomy and that one is capable of pursuing both. They also point out that people frequently cannot participate in politics if their basic needs aren’t being met so charity still makes sense in conjunction with political activity.

Effective Altruism is also criticized for its foundations in utilitarianism which has been said to lead to repugnant conclusions when taken to its logical conclusion. For instance, many people who would sacrifice the lives of 5 people to save one person as in the famous trolley problem. However, consider another scenario. Suppose instead that a doctor has 5 patients each suffering from different forms of organ failure. Now suppose he has a patient visit him who is a perfect match for each of the sick patients. Would it be ethical for the doctor to kill this patient, steal his organs, and transplant them into the sick people? It’s the same scenario as the trolley problem but most people would not believe this was ethical, suggesting that they cannot totally accept utilitarianism.

In response, utilitarians state that this scenario is not actually the best way to increase overall happiness which is the goal of the philosophy. Returning to the example, if people found out that this was happening in a hospital then people would be too afraid to seek medical care and many more people would suffer which would reduce overall wellbeing.

This leads to a final criticism, that EA is paternalistic. The philosopher and EA advocate Will MacAskill criticized one particular charity which simply distributed its donations directly to the beneficiaries in the form of cash. MacAskill criticized this effort saying that direct cash transfers would be less efficient than spending on public health interventions. This assumes that regular people don’t know what’s best for them and require the guidance of experts.

However, this criticism is false. MacAskills statement is not an objective measurement and therefore would not be considered as part of the approach of effective altruism. In fact, there is much quantitative evidence that direct cash donations are an effective way to help poor people.

Conclusion

In summary, effective altruism provides a compelling framework for thinking about ethical issues. Scarce resources should be prioritized to the highest value altruistic acts as determined by quantitative measures of their benefit. Causes favoring those in developing countries should be prioritized since some of these tend to get neglected and charitable donations can accomplish more good there than in developed countries. Existential risks also deserve special consideration even if their likelihood is low.

With the recent revolution in AI, there has been a renewed focus on existential risk. This approach is sometimes called Longtermism and advocates an almost exclusive focus on the wellbeing of those in the future since they comprise almost all humans who will ever exist. This approach is controversial. Critics say that this leads to neglect of ethical concerns happening now since they don’t threaten the existence of humanity. Funding has also become abundant in recent years so there is some concern that this disincentivizes rigor in determining the best causes. Finally, the crypto billionaire and alleged financial criminal Sam Bankman-Fried was an enormous advocate for EA and the collapse of his financial empire has somewhat damaged the reputation of the movement. Nevertheless, it still appears to be going strong and will have an impact for the foreseeable future.