Resource Hub
3505 hand-picked resources for students, job seekers, career changers, founders, and AI learners — 100% free to browse with no account required.
Filtered by tag
Answers come only from resources in this hub, with the sources listed.
10 resources
An experimental AI chat version of philosopher Peter Singer created with Sankalpa Ghose. Users can converse about his views on ethics, suffering, global poverty and AI risk; the site labels it an alpha release and notes responses may contain errors.
Matt Mikalatos explains TESCREAL, the term coined by computer scientist Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile P. Torres for a bundle of ideologies — transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism and longtermism — that he describes as billionaires and technologists pushing personal scientific projects while accepting fatal risks to people as the price of an "existential" need to advance the technology.
Article (republished on The Free Library) on the history and criticism of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, the research center tied to longtermism and existential-risk work, which closed in 2024. The page blocked an automated check, so this description is based on the title.
An essay by Venkatesh Rao (Contraptions newsletter) arguing that the Effective Altruism movement\u2019s framing of AI safety has become a problem in itself: \u201cEA promises to solve AI Safety. Now we have two problems.\u201d Rao draws on nearly two decades of writing alongside the rationalist community, and frames the piece as personal history as well as argument. Rao\u2019s Contraptions newsletter (formerly Ribbonfarm) was tagged \u201cpostrationalist\u201d by Scott Alexander.
Techdirt opinion piece (April 2024) arguing the effective altruism movement shifted its money and attention from global poverty to AI existential risk.
Why I recommend it: Openly argumentative and from 2024. Effective altruists dispute this framing; see Holden Karnofsky's and Luke Muehlhauser's profiles for their side.
An 11 September 2026 announcement post on the Effective Altruism Forum, by Manifund's Austin, saying Caroline Ellison started a work trial on 13 July and moved to a full-time role on 10 August, working on their funding platform and on research into directing philanthropic money. Free to read; heavily debated in the comments.
Why I recommend it: Filed as a primary document, not an endorsement. Caroline Ellison was a central figure in the collapse of FTX and served a prison sentence for fraud; this is the hiring organization's own framing of taking her on. It is worth reading alongside the comment thread, which was strongly negative at the time I added it, if you want to see how a movement argues in public about who it lets back in.
Free long-form Truthdig critique of effective altruism and longtermism, tracing the movement's funding, scandals and eugenic intellectual roots.
From the site: The multibillion-dollar Effective Altruism movement makes rich people feel good about being rich — to hell with the bad publicity.
Why I recommend it: Pointed and openly hostile to its subject. Read it next to the movement's own writing so you can judge which claims are documented and which are argument.
Non-profit with free research on where donations do the most good, plus a public pledge community and evaluations of charities and causes.
From the site: 100x your impact by finding and donating to the best charities. Learn about high-impact philanthropy, join an effective giving community, take a giving pledge.
Why I recommend it: Their cause research is a good model of reasoning under uncertainty, whether or not you pledge. Nothing is paywalled.
A free academic paper examining whether effective altruism's focus on individual giving overlooks institutional and political change as the larger lever.
Why I recommend it: Useful counterweight if you have read the pro-EA material — it argues the case from inside academic philosophy rather than online debate.
Scott Alexander's free long-form blog on statistics, medicine, forecasting, AI risk and how to reason carefully about contested claims.
Why I recommend it: Read it for the reasoning habits rather than the conclusions — the posts on evaluating evidence are useful in any field.
