A network of philanthropic organizations associated with the «effective altruism» movement and funded by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz is facing scrutiny over its role in pushing for artificial intelligence regulation, after a former AI researcher's dramatic resignation became a flashpoint in the national debate over how to govern the rapidly advancing technology.
Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C., went viral after questioning whether the resignation of Jacob Coxon, a former Anthropic researcher, was part of a broader, well-funded effort to influence lawmakers and AI policy. Coxon announced his departure from Anthropic in a post on X, writing that he had spent three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic and that neither company is «acting responsibly.»
«They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives,» Coxon wrote. Thayer quoted the post in a response that drew engagement from top lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt. «This post looks like the start of a VERY sophisticated and well-funded PR operation to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion,» Thayer wrote, noting that the first three accounts to quote the post did so within 15 minutes of its publication.
Thayer's claims echo those of White House AI advisor David Sacks, who has argued that fears about AI are overblown and potentially politically motivated. «I think this is becoming a panic,» Sacks told CBS News. «We're in an election season, and there is an incentive for political actors to try and amplify the fear.»
Coxon, however, has said he acted alone in voicing his concerns, according to The Wall Street Journal. In an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, he said the problem is «not unsolvable» and that if people «actually try instead of submitting to the inevitability of a doomed race or a hubristic gamble, then we can solve it.»
Thayer did not offer a theory for which individuals or groups might have coordinated with Coxon, who has denied such claims. But he said the «AI doomerism movement» is associated with «effective altruism,» a philosophy he described as «cult-like.» The Centre for Effective Altruism defines the movement as a project that aims to find the best ways to help others and put them into practice. Thayer suggested that while the philanthropic movement may sound high-minded, Silicon Valley elites and members who donate to it may have more direct political goals in mind.
Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, have been leading financial backers of organizations associated with effective altruism. The couple founded Coefficient Giving, formerly known as Open Philanthropy, and remain its «main funders,» according to the organization. Tuna serves as its president. Coefficient Giving says its artificial intelligence work has expanded rapidly, with $168 million committed to AI safety, security and field-building in 2024 and $351 million in 2025 — a combined $519 million. The organization says it is on track to commit more than $1 billion to AI policy advocacy in 2026.
In a 2021 grant application description, the organization said it seeks «to fund programs and events in a variety of areas of interest to Coefficient Giving — including effective altruism, global catastrophic risks, biosecurity, AI for epistemics, forecasting, and other areas.» Moskovitz, who Forbes estimates has a net worth of roughly $10 billion, contributed more than $50 million to support the Biden-Harris campaign from 2020 to 2024, including $46.89 million to the Future Forward PAC, which served as the main fundraising vessel for the failed presidential campaign.
The debate over AI regulation has drawn in figures across the political spectrum, including President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. On Monday, the Department of War Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering posted on X: «Americanism, not effective altruism. The United States will continue to be AI DOMINANT!»
Thayer compared the fear-mongering technique he associates with effective altruism's AI policy push to the climate change narrative, arguing that it is used to justify sweeping regulatory action. The controversy comes as public opinion polls show voters increasingly see AI regulation as urgent, ranking safeguards ahead of innovation — a dynamic that both parties are navigating as the technology's influence expands across the economy and society.