I am curious to know more about the 'get into dream project and only be able to achieve a fraction of it' at CG and elsewhere, since as I work in an EA org, I do not really recognize this--we do cheap tests for ambitious ideas and if the results are not good enough a few months later we abort/change the scale or ambition. It creates a feeling of unease in me that EA orgs trust people to do big things only to never have these finished, because it seems very wasteful, in terms of money at least (career capital I get it).
On that note, I find that is one of the hardest profiles to find in EA--someone who is not only ambitious and does apply the ITN framework and other concepts in the range of counterfactuals etc but also that actually sticks to the project and make it happen/is able to let go when things are not as effective as planned. I met plenty of folks that are smart --'we are all smart here' is the feeling in the room often-- but persistence? That is much harder to find. If anyone has good resources on how to find these people/design work test to identify these people, I am very happy to see it.
I hear you. If you think about the School for Moral Ambition for example, it is a bit that--in a way, its EA but unweird and less about philosophy, though the core principles of effectiveness remain. There is simply more of a systemic change vibe, with the tax fairness fellowship.
I think that we are already seeing status-seeking people get into the movement, or that is my experience as I go from conference to conference. So I am not sure how much of a risk that is. Plenty of folks laid off by USAID cuts or in general lack of hiring in big GH orgs are seeing EA as a job market. Which is good, because they are usually very talented.
I definitely think that we should invest more in creating our own narrative because so far it has been a lot of answering to criticism rather than having our own voice. Without compromising on principles, we can still control better our image since so far people know it mostly because of scandals. It hurts me that people know more about SBF than LEEP, for example
It is interesting how so many EA think of EA as an 'apolitical' movement, e.g. that EA is beyond left and right because it's data-driven and not ideology-driven.
That does not make sense to me. Personally I'm an opportunist. When the Tories create the AISI, it's politics. When the left endorses campaigns promoting animal welfare and plant-base options, it's politics. When CoefficientGiving works on land reforms, it's politics.
I like to think in terms of cause-area and which party is the most well-placed to push for progress in these causes; which means I'm ready to collaborate with everyone who advocates for sensible things.
No, it is more confusing than anything. What matters is to have an impact. Impactful orgs have been doing days and years of research on what is the most cost-effective and impactful. With a basic knowledge of EA principles you can identify which organizations meet your criteria of impact and which do not, and then apply. If you get a job there, you will learn by yourself how they think about impact and refine your view. If you prefer to go to a non-EA org to make more EA-alike (like WHO or UN) then I would certainly dive deeper into the principles and metrics of impact.
But in general I do not overwhelm people with philosophical conundrums. humility, scout mindset and solid skill-building are what matters to me.
We will organize a viewing of Oppenheimer in our office for our community and have a debate afterward: what would have the movie looked like if it was about AI?
Have you ever considered interacting with policy institutes/political commissions (EU commission, national parliaments, etc) to spread the word about effective allocation of resources, similar trends that could be followed by some governmental departments?
The second one is more daring, but I'm curious. How much does OpenPhilantropy and its council of advisors rely/apply your advice? For example, you wrote a very interesting sequence on value maximisation and one insight was that animal welfare was a winner on the short and longterm, but that does not translate at all in OP current funding allocation given the recent reductions in animal welfare budget/grant-criteria tightening when it comes to animal projects?
This is true, and in our EA group, we are establishing an outreach model to attract them. So far here's why they don't get involved:
Mood at EA event is very young and excited, and connecting is harder for older people since they have different interests/lifestyles (not everyone can 'optimize' each step of their lives when they have kids and such). Communication norms are also different.
Career opportunities are much harder to find and grasp for experienced people: it's not as easy to go three months do a fellowship somewhere and leave your family behind, or change countries to find the perfect job because there are few effective opportunities in your country. We're improving that by working on a mapping of EA-likeminded institutions, but it's nascent work, not that supported by 80k.
Many feel that their experience isn't valued and appreciated by EA members, when it's often a contest of who has read this and that but not so much learning from experienced members.
So yeah, as long as EA won't have a clear strategy of cooperation with other institutions (for example, the UN is often discarded efficiency-wise, but no good research proves this!), and as long as behavioural norms won't change, it"s going to be hard. We trying to reach a tipping point of 25% of experienced people for the mood to change, but it's hard.
As a community builder, I have several people telling me this on a frequent basis. It's nice to be able to follow good charities on Twitter, but that does not make up for the direction of the funding and therefore the opportunities and projects that are actually selected and funded, or the fact that most posts on the forum are now about AI given the sharp increase in AI-interested people (who do not necessarily have a past with EA, or altruism, as in giving etc). It does not make up for the fact that most people enter EA through 80k and get the feeling that they have to get into AI to be impactful, given the priorities. Or the fact that your chance to be coached by 80k is much greater if you want to work in longtermistic matters.
There is really a turning point in the movement, few actors are reacting against it, there is no real counter movement and most people in power do not speak up against this, even though they might have a more nuanced view on funding distribution than what is actually happening.
Maybe it will be one of these cases where the audience of one community changes completely, and thus becomes a different organization. It makes me very sad--there is no replacement to EA. No, global aid economics are not 'GH' in EA. No, animalistic parties cannot replace the work done by some EA orgs. It's a question to all: will we silently abide and passively go along the movement, whatever it becomes, or will we just have to exit EA? The latter is already happening a lot.
Well you said it: STEM is what makes the very big difference here. A 'leftwing' STEM will not have the same priorities at all than a social science student, so this leftwing label is very misleading, no matter how much people like to use it here to claim that EA is leftist.
A STEM student will have much more contempt towards protests, and what you conveniently forget to say is that STEM students are in general earning much more and come from much more privileged backgrounds. It's all about resources and how they are distributed, and so these students are in much less need to go out in the streets. So it's easier to look down on protests and think that these protests are just noisy and useless.
So my answer still stands and explains why EA is not protest-friendly.
I am curious to know more about the 'get into dream project and only be able to achieve a fraction of it' at CG and elsewhere, since as I work in an EA org, I do not really recognize this--we do cheap tests for ambitious ideas and if the results are not good enough a few months later we abort/change the scale or ambition. It creates a feeling of unease in me that EA orgs trust people to do big things only to never have these finished, because it seems very wasteful, in terms of money at least (career capital I get it).
On that note, I find that is one of the hardest profiles to find in EA--someone who is not only ambitious and does apply the ITN framework and other concepts in the range of counterfactuals etc but also that actually sticks to the project and make it happen/is able to let go when things are not as effective as planned. I met plenty of folks that are smart --'we are all smart here' is the feeling in the room often-- but persistence? That is much harder to find. If anyone has good resources on how to find these people/design work test to identify these people, I am very happy to see it.
I hear you. If you think about the School for Moral Ambition for example, it is a bit that--in a way, its EA but unweird and less about philosophy, though the core principles of effectiveness remain. There is simply more of a systemic change vibe, with the tax fairness fellowship.
I think that we are already seeing status-seeking people get into the movement, or that is my experience as I go from conference to conference. So I am not sure how much of a risk that is. Plenty of folks laid off by USAID cuts or in general lack of hiring in big GH orgs are seeing EA as a job market. Which is good, because they are usually very talented.
I definitely think that we should invest more in creating our own narrative because so far it has been a lot of answering to criticism rather than having our own voice. Without compromising on principles, we can still control better our image since so far people know it mostly because of scandals. It hurts me that people know more about SBF than LEEP, for example
It is interesting how so many EA think of EA as an 'apolitical' movement, e.g. that EA is beyond left and right because it's data-driven and not ideology-driven.
That does not make sense to me. Personally I'm an opportunist. When the Tories create the AISI, it's politics. When the left endorses campaigns promoting animal welfare and plant-base options, it's politics. When CoefficientGiving works on land reforms, it's politics.
I like to think in terms of cause-area and which party is the most well-placed to push for progress in these causes; which means I'm ready to collaborate with everyone who advocates for sensible things.
No, it is more confusing than anything. What matters is to have an impact. Impactful orgs have been doing days and years of research on what is the most cost-effective and impactful. With a basic knowledge of EA principles you can identify which organizations meet your criteria of impact and which do not, and then apply. If you get a job there, you will learn by yourself how they think about impact and refine your view. If you prefer to go to a non-EA org to make more EA-alike (like WHO or UN) then I would certainly dive deeper into the principles and metrics of impact.
But in general I do not overwhelm people with philosophical conundrums. humility, scout mindset and solid skill-building are what matters to me.
Was going to say that! Its incredible how we give little attention to cash flows and how every proposition to change it is being shut down.
We will organize a viewing of Oppenheimer in our office for our community and have a debate afterward: what would have the movie looked like if it was about AI?
Have you ever considered interacting with policy institutes/political commissions (EU commission, national parliaments, etc) to spread the word about effective allocation of resources, similar trends that could be followed by some governmental departments?
The second one is more daring, but I'm curious. How much does OpenPhilantropy and its council of advisors rely/apply your advice? For example, you wrote a very interesting sequence on value maximisation and one insight was that animal welfare was a winner on the short and longterm, but that does not translate at all in OP current funding allocation given the recent reductions in animal welfare budget/grant-criteria tightening when it comes to animal projects?
This is true, and in our EA group, we are establishing an outreach model to attract them. So far here's why they don't get involved:
Many feel that their experience isn't valued and appreciated by EA members, when it's often a contest of who has read this and that but not so much learning from experienced members.
So yeah, as long as EA won't have a clear strategy of cooperation with other institutions (for example, the UN is often discarded efficiency-wise, but no good research proves this!), and as long as behavioural norms won't change, it"s going to be hard. We trying to reach a tipping point of 25% of experienced people for the mood to change, but it's hard.
You are not alone, definitely not alone.
As a community builder, I have several people telling me this on a frequent basis. It's nice to be able to follow good charities on Twitter, but that does not make up for the direction of the funding and therefore the opportunities and projects that are actually selected and funded, or the fact that most posts on the forum are now about AI given the sharp increase in AI-interested people (who do not necessarily have a past with EA, or altruism, as in giving etc). It does not make up for the fact that most people enter EA through 80k and get the feeling that they have to get into AI to be impactful, given the priorities. Or the fact that your chance to be coached by 80k is much greater if you want to work in longtermistic matters.
There is really a turning point in the movement, few actors are reacting against it, there is no real counter movement and most people in power do not speak up against this, even though they might have a more nuanced view on funding distribution than what is actually happening.
Maybe it will be one of these cases where the audience of one community changes completely, and thus becomes a different organization. It makes me very sad--there is no replacement to EA. No, global aid economics are not 'GH' in EA. No, animalistic parties cannot replace the work done by some EA orgs. It's a question to all: will we silently abide and passively go along the movement, whatever it becomes, or will we just have to exit EA? The latter is already happening a lot.
Well you said it: STEM is what makes the very big difference here. A 'leftwing' STEM will not have the same priorities at all than a social science student, so this leftwing label is very misleading, no matter how much people like to use it here to claim that EA is leftist.
A STEM student will have much more contempt towards protests, and what you conveniently forget to say is that STEM students are in general earning much more and come from much more privileged backgrounds. It's all about resources and how they are distributed, and so these students are in much less need to go out in the streets. So it's easier to look down on protests and think that these protests are just noisy and useless.
So my answer still stands and explains why EA is not protest-friendly.