The purpose of this post is to provide a debrief on the outcomes of the Hackathon held on 12/5/22 following EAGxBerkeley.  

Goals:  

  • Provide an engaging activity as part of the participant-driven events surrounding the conference
  • Promote skill building for software engineers and aspiring developers
  • Create an open and welcoming space for non-software engineers to engage in project work and coworking 
  • Facilitate opportunities for networking, mentorship, and general community building for EA Software Engineers
  • Collect feedback and determine whether this kind of event would be worth holding again

What went well:

  • Hosting a Software Engineering meetup and Hackathon planning event during the conference helped boost awareness, solidified people's intentions to attend, and helped attendees hit the ground running
  • We also gave out hard copy flyers at Berkeley coworking spaces and during the conference which I think helped with awareness and stickiness
  • More attendees than expected!  We were anticipating 25-30, but we got 45
  • Excellent support from conference organizers and venue staff.  We brought / borrowed power strips, extension cables, whiteboards, and large writing pads that felt pretty essential throughout the day
  • Out of a possible score of 5, the average respondent to the feedback survey (n=8) rated overall experience as 4.125.  Impact was rated as 3.75.  Collaboration was rated as 4.125. Learnings were rated as 3.5.  Fun was rated as 4.375
  • Google Photos album to collect photos and videos from the event (and create a sense of FOMO for everyone who couldn't make it)

What went poorly:

  • Wifi at the venue was quite bad.  In the future, we would mitigate this with setting up mobile hotspots for the day, or we could find a different venue
  • We should have swapped the order of the dev environment and git learning sessions.  Also, given the wifi situation, we should have told new devs to download VSCode in advance of the event
  • Lack of specificity in project pitches. We should have asked pitches to include the tech stack and relative level of difficulty of various roles
  • Low response rate to feedback survey.  We should have dedicated the time and requested that participants fill out the form before we ended the event

Worth experimenting with in the future:

  • Explore hosting a hackathon on Thursday or Friday before the conference starts
  • Hackathon on a specific priority area could have more impact by bringing together people with a dedicated focus
  • Consider hosting a more formal event with an application, a presentation of results, and a judging component
  • Bay Area organizers should consider hosting more events in the Community Spaces of Sports Basements.  They're free and were great to work with
  • Use reoccurring office hours to encourage continued project

Resources:

Outcomes:

  • Give Calc tool — a Streamlit app that provides advice on how much to donate for people interested in lowering their net income by a percentage or an absolute amount. It's based on the PolicyEngine project, which is an open-source tool for exploring the effects of tax and benefit policies.
  • Contributions to open source projects — numpy, pytest, shed
  • Updates to landing page for Impact Markets — a three sided marketplace that aims to eliminate externalities for funding impactful projects

Impactfulness:  we set the bar intentionally low for output from the event, which lasted from 10am - 5pm due to constraints of the venue.  We figured seven hours would be enough time to make some progress on simple features, but nothing earth shattering, particularly once setup, lunch, and breakdown time is factored in.  We hope that EA community office hours will spur continued project work

Tractability:  because the Hackathon was pretty unstructured, the main cost to set it up was the time of the organizing team and the cost of lunch.  Now that the organizing work has been put into place once, it would be relatively low lift to reuse this playbook when hosting the next event

Neglectedness:  the event aimed to serve what we hypothesized was an unmet demand for fun, quasi-structured activities around the time of the conference.  This  fact that 45 people showed up and no one reported having a bad time (i.e., no feedback respondent rated their overall experience as less than 3 out of 5) seems to validate the experiment


Summary:

Hosting a Hackathon seems worthwhile.  Attendance was high, feedback was positive, some skill building took place, and at least one person reported feeling more engaged with EA as a result of the event. 

We have identified some things that we think we did well, along with many opportunities for improvement.  It would be straightforward to do this again as a community building exercise.  With a more structured approach (such as focusing on a specific cause area and asking applicants to apply), we could potentially generate more impactful outcomes.

More EAG(x) might consider incorporating this activity into the events before or following the conference.  Furthermore, city groups might be interested in adding a hackathon to their calendar of event programming.

Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you so much for organizing this, Nicole! I attended and it was extremely fun.

Agreed!!  Glad you enjoyed.

ES
4
0
0

Thanks Nicole (and I'm impressed how quick you are on the write up)!! I'm so glad people enjoyed it. For other EAG / EAGx organisers - this was a great addition to our conference and was great as a tangible next step for what attendees could do to stay further engaged. Would highly recommend.

Thanks, Elika — glad you think the event added value!

Sorry for not getting to the feedback form! I enjoyed the hackathon and broadly agree with the points above. Subjectively, the only downside for me was the choppy Wi-fi, though cellular hotspots seemed to work pretty well.

Thanks for putting this together! It was my first exposure to a hackathon since it was so well advertised and was open to everyone.

Thanks for coming, Constance!

The Google Photos album link is is broken

Fixed, I think

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal