In recent years, the Effective Altruism (EA) movement, born in Silicon Valley, has gained substantial influence in shaping Washington’s approach to technology policy, particularly regarding artificial intelligence (AI). This rationalist movement, backed by tech billionaires, began as a data-driven approach to address human suffering but has evolved into an influential force with an intense focus on AI’s existential risks. While some policymakers embrace EA’s concerns, others remain skeptical about the extent of these threats.
EA’s AI apocalypse concerns
One of the defining features of EA adherents is their apprehension about an AI apocalypse. Many Effective Altruism advocates strongly believe that humanity is on the brink of creating a superintelligent AI that could potentially outsmart all human efforts to control it. This AI, they fear, could either act autonomously or fall into the wrong hands, leading to catastrophic consequences. Some, including prominent EA thinker Eliezer Yudkowsky, argue that even a nuclear holocaust would be a preferable outcome compared to an unchecked AI future.
EA’s Washington invasion
Effective altruists have descended upon Washington, D.C., in significant numbers, and their presence is reshaping the city’s tech policy landscape. Their approach to AI policy differs substantially from the traditional policy professionals in the nation’s capital. While Washington typically deals with practical concerns like racial profiling, disinformation, and workforce displacement, Effective Altruism brings a more abstract, existential perspective to the table.
Members of Effective Altruism are actively pushing for sweeping AI laws designed to align AI development with human values and goals. These policies include new reporting rules for advanced AI models, licensing requirements for AI companies, restrictions on open-source AI models, and even a proposal for a complete “pause” on “giant” AI experiments. The overarching goal is to prevent an AI future that could potentially threaten humanity.
A clash of cultures
Effective Altruism advocates often approach Washington with a fervor akin to religious converts, creating a cultural clash with the city’s incremental and detail-oriented policymaking culture. While policymakers in D.C. are accustomed to addressing practical issues, EAs emphasize abstract existential concerns, setting them apart in their style and focus.
Critics have raised concerns about the lack of diversity among adherents of Effective Altruism. The movement is predominantly composed of individuals who are white, male, and from privileged backgrounds. This demographic makeup has led to skepticism from some lawmakers, particularly those from marginalized communities, who believe that EA’s worldview may not adequately address the AI-related concerns of those they represent.
The money flowing into Effective Altruism
One of the key factors driving EA’s influence in Washington is the substantial financial support it receives. Open Philanthropy, a major funder of EA causes founded by Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, has channeled immense resources into think tanks and programs, placing AI and biosecurity researchers in pivotal positions within government agencies and congressional offices.
The influence of tech billionaires in Effective Altruism cannot be overstated. Prominent figures like Elon Musk and Dustin Moskovitz have generously funded EA-related causes and organizations, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into influential think tanks and programs that have placed staffers in key governmental positions. This financial support has given EA a significant advantage in advocating for its policies.
A growing influence
Despite skepticism and criticism, EA’s influence continues to grow, shaping the debate around AI policy in Washington. EA-funded policy professionals are embedded throughout key policy nodes in the city, including the White House, federal agencies, and influential think tanks. Their presence is steering discussions towards existential AI risks, which have become a focal point of policy discourse.
AI optimists: A counterforce emerges
While EA has gained considerable traction in Washington, a counterforce is beginning to emerge. AI optimists, often referred to as “effective accelerationists,” are pushing back against proposals to slow down AI development and control. These optimists, led by figures like Marc Andreessen, are primarily centered in Silicon Valley and are determined to offer an alternative narrative.
Not everyone in Washington readily accepts the AI doomsday narrative. Some lawmakers remain skeptical about the likelihood and severity of existential AI risks. They believe that the focus on these risks may distract from addressing pressing issues such as AI bias, privacy, and cybersecurity.
While EA’s concerns about AI’s existential risks are gaining prominence, a growing chorus of policymakers is advocating for a more balanced approach. They argue that addressing immediate AI challenges, such as bias and privacy concerns, should not take a backseat to the fear of a hypothetical AI apocalypse.
EA’s growing impact on AI policy
The Effective Altruism movement, with its focus on existential AI risks and influential backers, has made a significant impact on Washington’s AI policy landscape. Its presence and policies are reshaping the debate around AI regulation, even as some policymakers remain cautious about the severity of the threats. As the AI policy discourse continues to evolve, finding a balance between addressing immediate concerns and contemplating existential risks remains a central challenge for policymakers in the nation’s capital.
