I’m Jordan, I recently joined as the Content Coordinator on the EA Global team at CEA, and I’d love to hear from the community about what content you’d like to see at future conferences. You can see upcoming conference dates here.
How do we usually select content?
Traditionally, our content selection focuses on:
- Informing attendees about important developments in relevant fields (eg. founders discussing new organisations or projects, researchers sharing their findings)
- Diving deeper into key ideas with experts
- Teaching new skills relevant to EA work
Some recent sessions that were well-received included:
- Panel – When to shut down: Lessons from implementers on winding down projects
- Talk – Neela Saldanha: Improving policy take-up and implementation in scaling programs
- Workshop – Zac Hatfield Dodds: AI Safety under uncertainty
However, we recognise that conference content can (and perhaps should) fulfil many other roles, so your suggestions shouldn’t be constrained by how things have been done in the past.
What kinds of suggestions are we looking for?
We welcome suggestions in various forms:
- Specific speakers: Nominate people who you think would make great speakers (this can be yourself!).
- Topic proposals: Suggest topics that you believe deserve more attention.
- Session format ideas: Propose unique formats that could make sessions more engaging (e.g., discussion roundtables, workshops, debates).
To get an idea of what types of content we’ve had in the past, check out recordings from previous EA Global conferences.
We have limited content slots at our conferences, which means we can't promise to follow up on every suggestion. However, every suggestion helps us better understand what our attendees want to see and can provide jumping-off points for new ideas.
How to Submit Your Suggestions:
- Comment on this post and discuss your ideas with other forum users.
- Fill out this form or email speakers@eaglobal.org if you’d prefer not to post publicly.
Your input can help shape future EAGs to be even more impactful. I look forward to hearing your suggestions!
Thanks -- those are similar to the causes I had in mind, although I would probably ground them even more explicitly in funding issues. For instance, it seems plausible that perceived "deference" to OP/GW/AIM (CE) is actually more like -- people don't go investigating theories of impact that don't seem to fit within established funding streams, and there are a lot of potential ideas that don't fit those funding streams very well.
It seems that AIM looks for interventions that can launch for ~$100-$250K and then produce enough results to attract continuing funding. There's a lot that will work with that model, but the ideas your answer hinted at may not be among them.
As for GW, its business processes seem to favor interventions that are more iteratively testable. By that I mean roughly those interventions for which you can get pretty decent evidence of a specific charity's effectiveness at a fairly low cost, and then fund an eight-figure RCT to promote the charity to top charity status.
Also -- and I say this lovingly as a committed GW donor! -- there's some truth to the idea that GW's top charities put band-aids on deep problems. One can think that band-aids are the best approach to these problems right now while recognizing that one will need just as many band-aids for next year's newborns. When you combine that with GW top charities having a lot of room for more funding with only a modest decrease in marginal effectiveness, you don't have much churn of established programs to make more room for the new ones.
That's not to criticize either organization! I am skeptical that any single organization could do something as broad as "global health and development" at a consistently high level, and there's a lot to be said for the Unix philosophy of doing one thing and doing it well.