Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Rohin Shah
2 min read 0

6

Building effective altruismTeaching materialsEffective altruism groupsPostmortems & retrospectives
Frontpage

(Note: All EA Berkeley retrospectives can be found here. This post includes the summary of our Spring 2016 retrospective because the full document is 28 pages long. In addition, we have created a public version of our Google Drive, which we encourage people to use. In particular, we have had a lot of interest in the course we teach -- details of the last iteration of the class can be found in this folder of the Drive.)

This is a report by the Effective Altruists of Berkeley on work done during Spring 2016. It was written mainly by Rohin Shah, with contributions from Ajeya Cotra, Jacob Straus, Matthew Borchardt and Joshua Price. It’s really long, so you may want to first read the one-page summary and then decide what else to read. Please email eaofberkeley@gmail.com with questions and comments, or comment on this post!

(Note: This table of contents links to an external Google Doc)

Summary

The Good

The Okay

The Bad

Club Activities

EA Global X

DeCal

Giving What We Can Pledges

Tabling

Fundraising

Berkeley Crowdfunding

Generous U

Weekly Meetings

One on One Meetings

Advisors and Colleagues

Prospective Members

Internet Outreach

General Mailing List

Facebook Page

Websites

Club Email

Socials

Giving Game Website

Greek Life

Club Management

Member Engagement

Organizational Structure

Retrospectives and Planning

Communication

Plans for Future Semesters

Appendix

Financial Transactions

Time put in by Co-Presidents

Chronology

Summary

The Good

  • We organized EAGxBerkeley on April 30, with about 70-80 attendees. (More)

  • We taught a 2-unit course about Effective Altruism. Of our 16 students, at least 7 took the Giving What We Can pledge, 2 will be new active members next semester, and 2 became vegetarian. (More)

  • In total, we got at least 9 students to take the Giving What We Can pledge, which Giving What We Can values at $540,000. (More)

  • We were awarded a $2,500 Generous U grant. (More)

  • We had one-on-one meetings with EA chapter leaders and EA community members that helped us with high-level strategy. (More)

  • We had one-on-one meetings with prospective members that were likely beneficial in retaining those members over the semester. (More)

  • We had club socials once every two weeks, which helped member engagement. (More)

The Okay

  • We played over 1,100 speed Giving Games, which resulted in around 300 mailing list signups and other changes. However, we do not think the results justify the costs. (More)

  • We held weekly meetings that were well attended, but a lot of the content was logistical and not relevant for many of the attendees. (More)

  • We built up our online presence, but are unsure about its impact. (More)

  • We got a group of students to build us a website for playing Giving Games, but it is not yet fully functional. (More)

  • We solidified our organizational structure, which will hopefully be helpful next semester, but it was not very helpful for this past semester. (More)

The Bad

 

  • We tried to organize a Giving What We Can pledge drive, but it failed, primarily due to lack of effort. (More)

  • We applied for Berkeley Crowdfunding, but were rejected. (More)

  • We tried to organize a retreat for club members, but it fell through. (More)

  • We tried to collaborate with fraternities and sororities to encourage them to fundraise for effective charities, but ultimately nothing changed. (More)

6

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
More from Rohin Shah
94
Person-affecting intuitions can often be money pumped
Rohin Shah
· · 4m read
69
69
58
[AN #80]: Why AI risk might be solved without additional intervention from longtermists
Rohin Shah
· · 12m read
12
12
62
Alignment Newsletter One Year Retrospective
Rohin Shah
· · 25m read
22
22
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
6
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
37
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
4
4
View more