For the age, it depends - Lions Cubs are younger than EAs, and some of these clubs take great care to attract young talent, although I'd agree that the most powerful and influential parts of these orgs are older. Perhaps that is to some extent true in EA too?

As for the prongs, I agree. I am hoping soon to finish the next article, but alas private life does not allow it, but eventually there will be more investigations into this, furthering 1. For 2., I agree, for some organizations such as Happier Lives Institute for example, it's a spot-on match in fact.

Hello Bara, thank you for your comprehensive thoughts. Let me try to answer them piece by piece.

- I agree that EA should have something appealing for some of these established organizations with extensive networks. What is already available is funding/grants (e. g. for low marginal cost high impact additions, such as these ones). What is quite available is statistical evaluation expertise and tech help (people who study or work in these fields looking for opportunities). What is less available is cost-effective solutions brainstorming skills (some EAs can be aware of the specific applications of the basic principles but be less able to develop solutions themselves). Fortunately, general brainstorming skills are abundant and Metis is available with the EA-unlabeled organizations, so solutions can be developed over a few calls. -

Over a few calls is perhaps optimistic, I would assume that trust needs to be painstakingly built and then maintained, but in theory, absolutely.

• Offering assistance framing can be also well received by the non-EA orgs. For example, coming to 'leverage their funds' could be perceived with reputational loss risk. The emphasis should be on offering funds and expertise, while possibly impactful funding adjustments (e. g. fund 3% less meals but fortify all of them in bulk to 10x your impact) can be found alongside. -

I could not agree more. We are not here to seize their funds, merely to help them spend them more effectively.

• The EA Consulting Network could definitely assist with the brainstorming part of marginal solutions development. Or, if the consultants are quite busy, then there could be some contractors specializing in brainstorming and BOTEC cost-effectiveness calculations. Do you know of anyone who could be interested in this?

Not as of yet, but that's the priority idea for me in the medium run. I would assume someone like Happier Lives Institute for example would have ready-made solutions that would already be an improvement.

• Metis/local knowledge should be approached in conjunction with international knoledge. This is because the people may be unaware of the solutions that would truly benefit them, especially if they are unfamiliar with alternative situations or the global context. An example is a poor person who wants to be rich but does not come up with a productivity increase and training scheme or investment environment improvements.

These orgs actually have both, and thank you for this distinction.

• In addition to branding, which may be valuable for getting EA-related concepts to decisionmakers in a legitimate way, the organizations that you specify (and others, much smaller ones) have relationships with the intended beneficiaries and their communities. This can be valuable for many programs that target the objectives of some of these decisionmakers (such as SDGs of the UN). For example, it can be difficult for a newcomer to convince farmers to plant only 1 seed 75cm apart from another one when before generations scattered the seeds freely. However, if someone who has before helped eradicate polio there suggests it, then the intended beneficiaries can try it much more readily.

I am hoping to develop this precise point in more detail in one of the next posts.

• What do you think would be a great way of engaging some Rotary members in EA? For example, would they be interested in discussing these EA-related books (which can be especially enjoyed by experienced professionals)? Or, would this be nice but distracting and something like skimming the first few chapters of Doing Good Better and then relating it to EA-related global poverty interventions (Weeks 1 and 2) would make people think more? Or, forgetting perhaps EA-traditional reading programs and just entertaining people on what programs they are running and what the cost-effective additionalities or decisionmaking adjustments could be, how they go about knowing what the intended beneficiaries actually need and how this could be provided at low (or negative, maybe by the market) cost? 

I think we need to start meeting them where they are. I have recommended making interesting topic presentations and going to present them, or writing them newsletters as that is how they currently function and what would likely encounter the least amount of friction. I think all EA courses are geared to too much of a different audience, whereas approach to a local club with local ideas by a local EA will be much more successful in getting a foot in the door before expanding on the other EA ideas and helping them make their existing projects more effective. After that, we can see which clubs are looking for new projects to fund, and suggest them EA related ideas.

• For the organizations that incubate investment projects, would some EA community members be able to estimate which ones can have high impact (e. g. cost per progress toward WALY ensuring system) and recommend investments?

I would assume so, but I'll cross that bridge when we get there, for now as I said above, we first use the existing materials made by different EA orgs to spread good ideas.

• Scaling up GiveWell-recommended orgs through existing EA-unlabeled orgs can have little or even negative impact. This is because the EA orgs are those which can absorb large amounts of funding and already minimize the costs that an established network could provide/probably work with networks. For example, nets could be distributed efficiently, vitamins also, deworming pills provided at schools, etc. If you would introduce this opportunity to another network (which could, however, fund these programs to a lesser extent), maybe EA-related donors would lose a sense of ownership and less impact would take place.

I believe that opportunities to help are so many and so underfunded, that networking with these organizations will just show us that we have more fields to work in. Competition goes out the window, the market is too large to saturate. EA can fund what it is funding, we can help others fund other things, and still not run out of places to fund, not reaching the point of lost ownership.

• Scaling up global health and development orgs that are not recommended by GiveWell can be also a challenge, because they operate on the same principle of distributing outputs at the lowest possible cost (e. g. SMS reminders after having negotiated great rates, vaccines, ...).

They are more than half-way there, I agree. Perhaps identifying them and supporting them is an opportunity?

• Animal welfare orgs could benefit from cooperation with EA-unlabeled orgs, for example advising that rather than transferring animals as income generating assets, tools are provided. This would be a kindness of the EA-unlabeled orgs because they would get nothing but additional considerations to take into account (but at the end, better solutions could be developed, e. g. if people specialize in value addition and technological development rather than rearing more animals).

More information is better, so long as inputs are good, I agree!

• AI safety organizations could benefit charities similar to those which you list by advising on how to make their systems safe since the beginning, e. g. if there is a digital governance initiative, digitization of an animal farm processes, or export processing zone operations digitization. Also, general tech skills could be applied in increasing the efficiencies of the orgs, (with priority) their especially impactful programs, or cases where tech solutions are those which are needed (e. g. digital IDs for refugees to prevent 'recycling' and expedite integration). The AI orgs would get training data from less represented context, so this could be a win-win.

Sure! Also, these organizations collect movers and shakers, some of which aren't AI researchers, but might be investors into AI firms, or managers in those orgs. We could be looking at alternative lateral ways to influence the field and make it more aware of the issues that exist. All of these combined, make this more than worthwhile I'd wager.

• Other orgs could have a similarly symbiotic relationship. For example, Momentum could benefit from additional downloads as well as having niche projects to advertise upon a wider variety of current events/news. The org would benefit from having a fun app to use to entertain their donors and their programs advertised among additional users interested in impactful spending.

Cool idea, I have not considered that!

• What do you think should be prioritized to increase the chances that this goes well, limit risks, and maximize the effectiveness of any effort? Also, who else could be interested in this and what skills would you be seeking?

I am thinking that these are the core questions to answer now at the first steps. I will keep writing these posts and looking more into this. I would assume that best way to approach would be through learning by doing - reaching out, talking, finding common points, and then reporting back to others. A cooperation between an org in Canada and a Rotary club there can open doors to ten other clubs around the world for similar ideas. As for limiting risks, the ideas need to be well presented, something that depends on many variables. I am uncertain what procedures exist currently in how presentations are done of EA ideas outside of EA, I doubt any central idea-place exists except this forum. Perhaps I'll write a guide on that as well - best as I can.

For the skills, I think past experience here is golden - looking for that metis that I claim we need. Beyond that, people and presentation skills, as the first phase is memetic, and at a later stage analytical to help analyze the incoming data and turn it into useful insights.