These proposals seem pretty good. One area I’m a bit less certain about though is the focus on growth.
I hadn’t really thought very much about the morale implications of growing EA before. These could be strong reasons to aim for growth.
At the same time, I do think it’s worth noting that there’s a certain tension between a principles-first approach and emphasising growth. Firstly, if we’re aiming to find people who strongly align with EA principles, rather than just resonating with one of the cause areas, that significantly narrows the pool. Secondly, it’s easier to built a movement where people have a deep understanding of that movement’s principles when the movement isn’t growing too fast. Thirdly, when a community has a strong commitment to principles, it can often access strategies that are less dependent on the size of the community, than when the community’s commitment to principles are weaker, leading to less value in growth.
I’m not saying that a growth strategy would be a mistake, just noting a deep tension here.
I’ll also note one argument on the growth side: to the extent that EA talent is being pulled into focusing more narrowly on AI safety, EA needs to increase the rate at which it brings in new talent in order to keep the movement healthy/viable. I don’t know how strong this consideration is as I don’t have a deep understanding of how EA is doing outside of Australia (within Australia more growth would be beneficial b/c so much of our talent gets pulled overseas).
You could argue that growth mechanisms to find these people would still lead to the movement having weaker commitment to the principles. I address some adjacent points in my response to Neel’s comment here.
(meta: why are people downvoting this comment? I disagree voted but there is nothing in this comment that makes me go, “I want less comments like this on the Forum”)
These proposals seem pretty good. One area I’m a bit less certain about though is the focus on growth.
I hadn’t really thought very much about the morale implications of growing EA before. These could be strong reasons to aim for growth.
At the same time, I do think it’s worth noting that there’s a certain tension between a principles-first approach and emphasising growth. Firstly, if we’re aiming to find people who strongly align with EA principles, rather than just resonating with one of the cause areas, that significantly narrows the pool. Secondly, it’s easier to built a movement where people have a deep understanding of that movement’s principles when the movement isn’t growing too fast. Thirdly, when a community has a strong commitment to principles, it can often access strategies that are less dependent on the size of the community, than when the community’s commitment to principles are weaker, leading to less value in growth.
I’m not saying that a growth strategy would be a mistake, just noting a deep tension here.
I’ll also note one argument on the growth side: to the extent that EA talent is being pulled into focusing more narrowly on AI safety, EA needs to increase the rate at which it brings in new talent in order to keep the movement healthy/viable. I don’t know how strong this consideration is as I don’t have a deep understanding of how EA is doing outside of Australia (within Australia more growth would be beneficial b/c so much of our talent gets pulled overseas).
I just want to quickly note that I think there are a lot of people who would resonate with the principles of EA but haven’t heard about it. Very few people have heard of EA, and while there are some methodological nuances to be had with this study, it suggests that the number of EA-sympathetic students on NYU’s campus is over 5x the number of students who were sympathetic and familiar with EA. So generally, I think there is a lot of potential growth available of people who do strongly align to EA principles.
You could argue that growth mechanisms to find these people would still lead to the movement having weaker commitment to the principles. I address some adjacent points in my response to Neel’s comment here.
(meta: why are people downvoting this comment? I disagree voted but there is nothing in this comment that makes me go, “I want less comments like this on the Forum”)