Note: I’m writing this comment in my capacity as an individual, not as a representative of CEA, although I do work there. I wouldn’t be surprised if others at CEA disagree with the characterization I’m making in this comment.
I want to provide one counterexample to the conception that most of mainstream EA is leaning “cause-first” in the status quo. CEA is a large organization (by EA standards) and we definitely invest substantial resources in “member-first” style ways.[1]
To be specific, here is a sampling of major programs we run:
Groups
University Groups (mostly focused on the University Group Accelerator Program currently, which is a scaled program targeting a broad range of mostly non-top unis)
City & National Groups (most of the funds go towards our top 15 city-national groups, but we also fund a long tail of other groups all around the world.)
Virtual Programs (designed to be accessible, available globally, focused on EA fundamentals principles, although it also covers causes.)
Events
EAGs and EAGx are designed to help members coordinate, and EAGx in particularly is held around the world and fairly “big tent”
Community Health / Online
Services offered by these programs (e.g. this forum) are basically infrastructure for community members
Some important caveats: there’s other things we do, we think seriously about trying to capture the heavy-tail and directing people towards specific cause areas (including encouraging groups we support to do the same), and we definitely shifted some content (like the handbook) to be more cause-area oriented. CEA is also only one piece of the ecosystem.
Overall though, I do think much of CEA’s work currently represents investment that intuitively seems more “member-first”, (whether or not this is the correct strategy), and we’re a reasonably large part of the CB ecosystem.
Also, although I think the member/cause distinction is useful, it’s also sufficiently vague and “vibes-y” enough that many programs and organizations, like CEA, could probably be construed as focusing on either one.
Thanks for your perspective Conor! Looking into these activities in more detail, I have some notes:
UGAP—I don’t know much about this program, unfortunately. The reports I’ve seen seem to maybe encourage more member-first but I’m not sure. Regarding their KPIs for university groups, it seems like they used HEAs but write that they don’t like it and want to use other metrics. I’d be interested in what comes up with that.
I am also not that familiar with OpenPhil’s university program, which I imagine to be mostly hands-off. I guess that they are thinking of community building in a more cause-oriented way, but I don’t know.
City & National Groups—I’d be interested in understanding the considerations involving which groups to fund and which activities seem most important.
Introductory EA program (follows the Handbook, which is arguably cause-first)
In-Depth EA Program (mostly methodological, member-first)
How to (actually) change the world (member-first, even though it’s hosted by Non-Trivial which seems strongly cause-first)
Past programs
cause-specific (alt. proteins, animal advocacy, ML safety and AGI safety)
career-specific: US policy (very practical, seems member-first, even though likely motivated by x-risk concerns), Law (cause-first, maybe due to good pedagogical reasons).
Events—definitely a mix of the two. Helping members coordinate is done both for intra-cause reasons and to broadly support EAs in their EA endeavors.
Forum—also definitely a platform for both cause-first and member-first discussions, but I think its goals are leaning more member-first.
Note: I’m writing this comment in my capacity as an individual, not as a representative of CEA, although I do work there. I wouldn’t be surprised if others at CEA disagree with the characterization I’m making in this comment.
I want to provide one counterexample to the conception that most of mainstream EA is leaning “cause-first” in the status quo. CEA is a large organization (by EA standards) and we definitely invest substantial resources in “member-first” style ways.[1]
To be specific, here is a sampling of major programs we run:
Groups
University Groups (mostly focused on the University Group Accelerator Program currently, which is a scaled program targeting a broad range of mostly non-top unis)
City & National Groups (most of the funds go towards our top 15 city-national groups, but we also fund a long tail of other groups all around the world.)
Virtual Programs (designed to be accessible, available globally, focused on EA fundamentals principles, although it also covers causes.)
Events
EAGs and EAGx are designed to help members coordinate, and EAGx in particularly is held around the world and fairly “big tent”
Community Health / Online
Services offered by these programs (e.g. this forum) are basically infrastructure for community members
Some important caveats: there’s other things we do, we think seriously about trying to capture the heavy-tail and directing people towards specific cause areas (including encouraging groups we support to do the same), and we definitely shifted some content (like the handbook) to be more cause-area oriented. CEA is also only one piece of the ecosystem.
Overall though, I do think much of CEA’s work currently represents investment that intuitively seems more “member-first”, (whether or not this is the correct strategy), and we’re a reasonably large part of the CB ecosystem.
Also, although I think the member/cause distinction is useful, it’s also sufficiently vague and “vibes-y” enough that many programs and organizations, like CEA, could probably be construed as focusing on either one.
Thanks for your perspective Conor! Looking into these activities in more detail, I have some notes:
UGAP—I don’t know much about this program, unfortunately. The reports I’ve seen seem to maybe encourage more member-first but I’m not sure. Regarding their KPIs for university groups, it seems like they used HEAs but write that they don’t like it and want to use other metrics. I’d be interested in what comes up with that.
I am also not that familiar with OpenPhil’s university program, which I imagine to be mostly hands-off. I guess that they are thinking of community building in a more cause-oriented way, but I don’t know.
City & National Groups—I’d be interested in understanding the considerations involving which groups to fund and which activities seem most important.
Virtual programs -
Open programs
The Precipice reading group (cause-first)
Introductory EA program (follows the Handbook, which is arguably cause-first)
In-Depth EA Program (mostly methodological, member-first)
How to (actually) change the world (member-first, even though it’s hosted by Non-Trivial which seems strongly cause-first)
Past programs
cause-specific (alt. proteins, animal advocacy, ML safety and AGI safety)
career-specific: US policy (very practical, seems member-first, even though likely motivated by x-risk concerns), Law (cause-first, maybe due to good pedagogical reasons).
Events—definitely a mix of the two. Helping members coordinate is done both for intra-cause reasons and to broadly support EAs in their EA endeavors.
Forum—also definitely a platform for both cause-first and member-first discussions, but I think its goals are leaning more member-first.