Hide table of contents

This forum post was co-authored by Emma Abele, Marie Buhl, and Marissa Jurczyk. We also received editing help from Aaron Gertler.

Edit: added a new step under option 3 and 4.

TL;DR we think organising your own local introductory EA program is in many cases likely to be more beneficial than outsourcing it to EA Virtual Programs (EA VP). 

However, there are many factors to consider and options to choose from when it comes to helping new members learn more about EA. In this post, we’ll break these options down for you. 

The two types of introductory EA programs

In general, there are two types of introductory EA programs that you can offer to people:

  • Local programs run by local organisers with support from Marie Buhl.
  • Global programs run by EA VP.

As a local organiser, you might be wondering whether to organise a program for your local group or send people to EA VP. 

In general, we recommend that EA organisers organise their own program rather than outsource, if:

  • You or your team feel confident organising your own program
  • You or your team have the time to do so
  • You or your team have enough participants
  • You or your team want to gain experience and useful skills

For groups that can’t run an in-person program and don’t have much organising experience, we’re more uncertain — but we still think running a local program could well be the best thing to do.

In an analysis done by Marie Buhl, she found that locally organised introductory EA programs perform slightly better than EA VP on several metrics:

  • Participants spent an additional hour each week engaging with the content (four hours rather than three)
  • Participants made an average of three friends, rather than two
  • Participants expressed a stronger sense of belonging (an NPS score of 13, rather than 5)

In these other metrics, local programs and EA VP performed similarly:

  • The likelihood of recommending the program to a friend
  • How highly people rate their facilitator

All programs in this analysis were online. We think there are likely additional benefits to programs being in-person that would make local programs look even better compared to EA VP.

Your options

If you think your group could benefit from an introductory program, there are a few options for facilitating them, depending on how much time you have, your skills, and your goals for yourselves and the group: 

  • Option 1: Run your own program
  • Option 2: Collaborate with an experienced organiser
  • Option 3: Collaborate with EA VP
  • Option 4: Outsource most of the work to EA VP

Option 1: Run Your Own Program

You have the option to manage, advertise, and facilitate your own program. You can use our organizer pack to follow how we recommend doing this and use our resources. We recommend you run your own program, if…

  • You or your team feel confident in organising a multi-week long program and facilitating discussions.
  • You or your team have enough capacity (5 hours a week or more), and don’t have anything else more important to do.
  • You have a critical mass of participants (3 or more people who will almost certainly attend almost every meeting)
  • You or your team want to gain experience and useful skills (e.g. operations, communications, facilitation, foundational EA ideas, impact evaluation)

Again, if you think you’d be well-suited to run your own program, we highly recommend that you do so, since you can better customize the program for your group and will likely produce better results.

Interested in running your own program? Contact Marie Davidsen Buhl (marie@centreforeffectivealtruism.org) for resources and support. 

Option 2: Collaborate with an Experienced Organiser

When you collaborate virtually with an experienced organiser, we’ll connect you with someone who has facilitation skills and a strong understanding of effective altruism, who can advise your group and potentially take on some tasks. Collaborating virtually with an experienced organiser can be a good option if…

  • You or your team don’t feel very confident in organising a multi-week long program and facilitating discussions.
  • You or your team have enough capacity (more than 5 hours a week), and don’t have anything else more important to do.
  • You have a critical mass of participants (3 or more people who will almost certainly attend almost every meeting)
  • You or your team want to gain experience and useful skills(e.g. operations, communications, facilitation, foundational EA ideas,impact evaluation)

Want to collaborate with an experienced organiser? Contact a nearby EA group with more experience, or contact Marie Davidsen Buhl (marie@centreforeffectivealtruism.org) to see if she can help you connect with an organiser. 

Option 3: Collaborate with EA VP

The EA VP team can take care of organizing the logistics -- all you need to do is facilitate your own group and market the program! We recommend this option if…

  • You or your team don’t feel very confident in organising a multi-week long program and facilitating discussions.
  • You or your team have some capacity (2-5 hours a week), and don’t have anything else more important to do.
  • You have a critical mass of participants (3 or more people who will almost certainly attend almost every meeting)
  • You or your team care less about gaining experience (but are still interested in improving your facilitation skills and knowledge of foundational EA ideas)

Unfortunately, EA VP does not have the capacity to change our systems to accommodate preferences for your group. So you will have to use our deadlines, processes, curriculum, surveys, etc. 

If you’d like to collaborate with EA VP: 

  1. Plan 1-2 months early. We need you to stick to our deadlines. It'll be a lot of work to make exemptions to multiple groups at the same time, so we want to avoid that. 
  2. Market the program to your group and get them to apply.
  3. EA VP runs virtual programs once a month, so make sure you get your group to:
    1. Sign up for the same round and program before each round’s deadline.
    2. Tick “yes” to questions asking whether participants prefer to be in the same cohort with those in the same university or location.
    3. Coordinate with your members If you want your groups to all have the same time slots. We can’t group your members in a cohort if they have no mutual time slots.
  4. Apply as a facilitator, and get your fellow organizers to apply as facilitators EA VP prefers to keep the cohorts to a size smaller than six participants. So, if you have seven participants, you’ll need two facilitators from your group. If your group doesn’t have enough people to facilitate, then EA VP will find people outside your group to help.

Option 4: Outsource Most of the Work to EA VP

Alternatively, EA VP runs virtual programs once per month, so you have the option to have your group members join one of our cohorts. This is often a good option if...

  • You or your team don’t feel very confident in organising a multi-week long program and facilitating discussions.
  • You or your team have very little capacity (less than 2 hours a week), or have something else more important to do.
  • You’re not likely to have a critical mass of participants (2 or fewer)

If you’d like to outsource everything to EA VP: 

  1. Plan 1-2 months early. We need you to stick to our deadlines. It'll be a lot of work to make exemptions to multiple groups at the same time, so we want to avoid that. 
  2. Market the program to your group and get them to apply.
  3. EA VP runs virtual programs once a month, so make sure you get your group to:
    1. Sign up for the same round and program before each round’s deadline.
    2. Tick “yes” to questions asking whether participants prefer to be in the same cohort with those in the same university or location.
    3. Coordinate with your members If you want your groups to all have the same time slots. We can’t group your members in a cohort if they have no mutual time slots.
       
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I think you could only have 1 or 2 participants and still have a "critical mass of participants". Stanford EA only has two participants in each of their cohorts, and there's reason to think that these ultra-small cohort sizes can help participants become more engaged.

Small cohort size seems costly from a facilitator's point of view. And some participants found smaller group sizes more intimidating too.

EA VP has been increasing their cohort sizes recently. Attrition rates are at around 30% so having a cohort size of at least 4 participants by the end of program seems like a good number to have.  

I'm curious what the attrition rates are for the Stanford EA format, and how they're able to get so many facilitators. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3