关于如何控制人工智能（AI）并限制其可能造成的危害的讨论是健康且必要的；这样的讨论也是不可避免且紧迫的。
The debate about how to control AI and limit its potential for damage is healthy and necessary. It is also unavoidable and urgent.
但这并非唯一重要的议题。还有一个同样关键的问题：如何公平地分享AI带来的好处。迄今为止，传统的商业模式让世界上最贫困的人群被抛在了后面。而对于那些生活在冲突地区（如苏丹、乌克兰、加沙和阿富汗）的人们来说，AI可以帮助他们满足迫切的需求。
But this is not the only vital debate. There are also vital questions about how the upsides of AI are shared fairly. Business as usual has left the world's poorest people behind, so far. And for those caught up in conflict—in places like Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, and Afghanistan—AI can help meet urgent needs.
很明显，当今世界拥有的用于行善的资源比人类历史上任何时候都要多，但我们往往没有将这些资源分配到最需要的地方。如今，AI有望创造更多资源——比如更多的空闲时间、有价值的见解以及资金——而这些资源必须被用在正确的地方。
It is clear to me that the world has more resources to do good than at any time in human history, but too often, we don't distribute them where they are most needed. Now, AI stands to create even more resources in the form of free time, insights, and funds. And they need to be spent in the right places.
AI革命将会催生新一代的亿万富翁和百万富翁，同时也会出现新一代的慈善家；“慈善家”这个词源于古希腊语，意为“对人类的热爱”。这提醒我们：慈善行为其实源于一些最基本的人类情感：关怀、爱、同理心和无私。
The AI revolution is going to mint a new generation of billionaires and millionaires—and with them, a new generation of philanthropists; a term stemming from the Ancient Greek meaning “love of humanity”. It’s a reminder that the act of giving begins with some of the most fundamentally human impulses: care, love, empathy, and selflessness.
也许这就能解释为什么“有效利他主义”（即认为慈善行为应该基于证据和理性分析的理念）会让人感到反直觉。但说实话，我一直不明白为什么会有这样的误解……毕竟，谁会希望慈善行为缺乏效率呢？我们每个人都应该思考：自己的钱应该用在何处才能产生最大的社会价值。
Maybe this explains why Effective Altruism—the idea that generosity should be subjected to evidence and calculation—seemed counterintuitive. But I never understood why. After all, who wants ineffective altruism? We should all be asking where our money can do the most good.
那些致力于解决世界上最棘手问题的组织（比如我领导的那些组织）需要慈善资金的支持——这些资金不仅要富有同情心，还要具备理性判断力；它们应该关注实际成果，而不仅仅是表面的赞誉或知名度；它们的目标应该是创造真正的价值，而不仅仅是履行社会责任。
Organizations working at the sharpest end of the world’s toughest problems—like the one I lead—need philanthropy to be the smart money: hard-headed as well as big-hearted, focused on outcomes not visibility, concerned to add value not just kudos. Results, not just responsibility, should be the watchword.
幸运的是，在过去的20年里，我们经历了“证据革命”（即通过科学研究来验证各种方法的有效性）；我们现在对哪些方法真正有效有了更清晰的认识。这使得慈善行为变得更加容易实施。距离也不再是阻碍人们提供帮助的障碍了。
Fortunately, there’s been an evidence revolution over the last 20 years. We know a whole lot more about what actually works. This makes giving much easier. Distance no longer needs to be the enemy of confidence.
事实上，我们有充分理由从全球视角而非仅仅本地视角思考在哪里能够产生影响。随着世界日益紧密相连，各国政府在全球性问题上却日益退缩。例如，经济合作与发展组织（OECD）成员国的官方发展援助资金在2025年历史性地下降了23.1%。如今，我们需要新的慈善事业来在一个显然失衡的世界中提供某种平衡。
In fact, there is every reason to think globally, not just locally, about where to make a difference. As the world has become more and more connected, governments have retreated from global problems. For instance, official development assistance funds from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries dropped by a historic 23.1% in 2025. Now, we need new philanthropy to provide some balance in a world that is clearly out of balance.
美国约94%的慈善支出用于国内。但世界其他地区不仅是需求最迫切的地方——从急性儿童营养不良到针对妇女的暴力——也是慈善事业可能产生最大收益的地方。
Around 94% of American philanthropy is spent in the U.S. But the rest of the world is not just where the needs are greatest—from acute childhood malnutrition to violence against women—but where the gains from philanthropy can be greatest.
国际救援委员会（IRC）每年在我们的《紧急观察名单》中排名的20个面临人道主义危机恶化最高风险的国家，仅占全球人口的12%，却承载了90%的人道主义需求。在这些地区，以苏丹、加沙和南苏丹等地区为首，儿童在五岁前死亡的可能性是其他地区儿童的三倍，成长为极端贫困的可能性是其他地区儿童的十倍。居住在这些地区的人们对气候变化的贡献最少，却承受着气候变化与冲突的双重压力——并且获得的适应支持最少。
The 20 countries at greatest risk of a worsening humanitarian crisis, ranked by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) annually in our Emergency Watchlist, represent just 12% of the global population, but 90% of those in humanitarian need. In these places, led by regions like Sudan, Gaza, and South Sudan, children are three times more likely to die before their fifth birthday and 10 times more likely to grow up in extreme poverty than children born elsewhere. The people living here have done the least to contribute to climate change, but face the combined pressures of climate change and conflict—and receive the least support to adapt.
如果慈善事业及其“对人类的爱”真正属于某处，那就是这些地区。而就在此时，人道主义工作者已经开发出越来越复杂的工具，以转化我们对如何帮助人们在危机中生存和恢复的认识。实时数据、随机对照试验、成本效益和成本效率分析，以及预测性分析，已经改变了证据基础和行动依据。
If philanthropy and its “love of humanity” belong anywhere, it is these areas. And just in time, humanitarians have developed increasingly sophisticated tools to transform what we know about how to help people survive through and recover from crisis. Real-time data, randomized controlled trials, cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency analysis, plus predictive analytics, have transformed the evidence base and the basis for action.
自2020年以来，国际救援委员会单独就已进行了50多项影响评估以及500项成本分析，使我们能够衡量的不仅仅是干预措施是否有效，而是其成本是多少，以及每多投入一美元能带来多少额外效益。因此，我们不必被那些突出显示的巨大数字所吓倒——这些数字指的是4300万急性营养不良儿童、2000万未完成全程免疫接种的儿童、超过3亿饥饿人口，以及仅在脆弱国家就有数十万女性在分娩过程中死亡。这些问题我们实际上知道如何以可管理的、事实上是低廉的成本来解决。
The IRC alone has conducted over 50 impact evaluations since 2020 as well as 500 cost analyses, allowing us to measure not simply whether an intervention works, but how much it costs and how much further each additional dollar can go. So we don't need to be daunted by the big numbers highlighting the 43 million children who are acutely malnourished, the 20 million kids without full immunization, over 300 million people hungry, and hundreds of thousands of women dying in childbirth in fragile states alone. These are problems that we actually know how to solve at manageable, in fact low, cost.
例如，我们已经学会如何在索马里、南苏丹和也门等地以每剂仅2美元的成本提供疫苗接种——总计4000万剂——在此过程中，我们还与武装团体进行谈判，以获得原本无法获得医疗服务的人群的准入。这带来的是终身受益，而不仅仅是短期缓解。
For example, we have learned how to deliver vaccine shots—40 million of them—at just $2 a shot in places like Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, negotiating with armed groups along the way to get access to populations otherwise cut off from healthcare. This offers lifelong benefit, not just a short-term palliative.
我们还展示了当地卫生工作者如何在受危机影响儿童居住的社区中，更简便地直接诊断和治疗急性营养不良。这种方法的康复率达到92%，而早期干预可以在营养不良变得严重之前将其发现。结果是，我们的成本效益提高了20%，使得用相同的资金能够帮助更多儿童。
We’ve shown how local health workers can more simply diagnose and treat acute malnutrition directly in communities where crisis-affected children live. This approach offers a 92% recovery rate, and earlier interventions can catch malnutrition before it becomes severe. The result is that we are 20% more cost-effective, allowing us to help more kids for the same amount of money.
还有更多例子。我们已经证明，当针对妇女和儿童的暴力问题被共同应对时，这两类暴力可以减少超过70%。我们也证明了在气候灾害发生前提供援助的好处，而不仅仅是事后反应：在阿富汗，我们的服务对象陷入更深贫困的可能性降低了三倍。
There are more examples. We've demonstrated that violence against women and violence against kids can be reduced by over 70% when they are tackled together. We have also proven the benefits of giving aid in advance of climate disasters, not just in reaction to them: in Afghanistan, our clients were three times less likely to fall further into poverty.
当然，战争和国家失败导致的环境充满挑战。但这使得对生活在这些地区的人们的人道主义责任更加紧迫。
Of course, the contexts stricken by war and state failure are challenging. But that makes the philanthropic imperative towards the people who live there all the more urgent.
硅谷正在创造财富的同一种技术，也能为最不幸的人们提供帮助。国际救援委员会（IRC）的全球数字求助平台“标志牌”（Signpost）已用12种语言向因危机被迫流离失所的2000万人提供及时、挽救生命的信息。领先的科技公司帮助我们开发了这一平台。在索马里，IRC团队在去年毁灭性干旱来临前采取了预防性行动——这种干旱通常会引发霍乱爆发。同样，这离不开财政支持、技术专长和非政府组织经验的合作。
The same technology that is delivering fortunes in Silicon Valley can also deliver help to the least fortunate. IRC’s global digital helpdesk, Signpost, has reached 20 million people forced to flee crisis in 12 languages with timely, life-saving information. Leading tech companies helped us develop it. In Somalia, IRC teams employed anticipatory action ahead of last year’s devastating drought, a disaster that typically drives cholera outbreaks. Again, it took partnership of financial support, technical know-how, and NGO savvy.
在这些领域，传统援助体系正在失效。气候与人道主义系统常常各自为政，各自成 silo。尽管有证据表明其有效性，但不到1%的援助被用于预防性行动。每个政府捐助方都有各自的官僚体系，报告制度、合规要求和衡量标准各不相同。
In all these areas, the traditional aid system is falling short. Too often, climate and humanitarian systems work in separate silos. Despite the evidence, less than 1% of aid is invested in anticipatory action. Every government donor has its own bureaucracy, with different reporting systems, compliance requirements, and measurement metrics.
这是慈善事业可以帮助打破的顽疾。通过聚焦有效之事、衡量真正重要的指标，并投资于创新。风险不在于行动，而在于惯性。
This is the syndrome that philanthropy can help break. By focusing on what works, measuring what counts, and investing in innovation. The risk does not lie in action; it lies in inertia.
我们比以往任何时候都更清楚什么在人道主义危机中有效，也拥有了能够将这些成果推广的新工具。这一代慈善家的机遇不在于单纯地多给一些，而在于把我们所学到的应用到风险最高的地方。真正的考验不是他们给了多少，而在于给在哪里。
We know more than ever about what works in humanitarian crises, and we have new tools capable of extending those gains. The opportunity for this generation of philanthropists is not simply to give more. It is to take what we have learned and apply it where the stakes are highest. The real test isn't how much they give. It’s where.