On question three (the forum keeps renumbering my answers to I’m writing the numbers in text):
3.) I like the program plan and a lot of individual projects, but it feels a bit like throwing everything but the kitchen sink, very loosely fit together by theme. There doesn’t seem to be that much rationale for why some projects are taking place and others aren’t. While it’s good to try many things to learn lots fast, it’s also good to focus on a few things to do them well. What thought has CEA given to this tradeoff?
I agree with you that there are a lot of different projects here (and the list used to be much much longer before we had to cut it down to what was more realistic to achieve!) The strategy that we tend to use at CEA is to experiment on a number of different things when we move into a new area and then scale up the things that work well. For example when we created 80,000 Hours we experimented with making it a campaigning movement, an online app, a community, and a lecture series, before settling on the current model of it being a service to help people choose their careers. Without this experimentation it is easy to commit too many resources to sub-optimal projects that we end up pivoting away from. This is why this list does look long, and why we expect it will narrow at the end of this year, and possibly even during the year if one or more of the projects seem particularly bad on closer inspection.
It is also notable that we have also taken one bigger bet, in the books that we are publishing. In including writing time, William MacAskill’s book and marketing campaign will have at least one person-year of time put into it. This is because we were presented with a particularly good publishing deal—pretty much the best deal that it is possible to get as a non-celebrity first-time author.
Another factor that I notice is that because Niel and I are, as far as I know, the first EAs to focus exclusively on EA outreach, the space of possible projects is vast, and there’s lots of low-hanging fruit.
EA Ventures is a great example. I think I’ve talked to around a dozen people who independently had an idea similar to EAV, but didn’t have the time to get it off the ground. Given a vast space of high-impact projects, I think it makes sense to try many different things and then double down on the projects that show the most promise.
That said, if there are good arguments for not doing some projects or for doing others instead, I think Niel and I would be very keen to update our views.
Given a vast space of high-impact projects, I think it makes sense to try many different things and then double down on the projects that show the most promise.
What sort of goals are you setting to tell whether a project has promise or not?
I wouldn’t view this as throwing in ‘everything and the kitchen sink’. A large majority of the funding will go to four things:
1) Promotion for Singer’s book
2) Promotion for MacAskill’s book, including websites for people to land on before/after reading it
3) Getting EA Global to happen
4) Getting EA Ventures off the ground.
Much of the first three will be outsourced, which is why two people can handle this many projects at once, with the funding necessary to pay professionals.
On question three (the forum keeps renumbering my answers to I’m writing the numbers in text):
I agree with you that there are a lot of different projects here (and the list used to be much much longer before we had to cut it down to what was more realistic to achieve!) The strategy that we tend to use at CEA is to experiment on a number of different things when we move into a new area and then scale up the things that work well. For example when we created 80,000 Hours we experimented with making it a campaigning movement, an online app, a community, and a lecture series, before settling on the current model of it being a service to help people choose their careers. Without this experimentation it is easy to commit too many resources to sub-optimal projects that we end up pivoting away from. This is why this list does look long, and why we expect it will narrow at the end of this year, and possibly even during the year if one or more of the projects seem particularly bad on closer inspection.
It is also notable that we have also taken one bigger bet, in the books that we are publishing. In including writing time, William MacAskill’s book and marketing campaign will have at least one person-year of time put into it. This is because we were presented with a particularly good publishing deal—pretty much the best deal that it is possible to get as a non-celebrity first-time author.
Another factor that I notice is that because Niel and I are, as far as I know, the first EAs to focus exclusively on EA outreach, the space of possible projects is vast, and there’s lots of low-hanging fruit.
EA Ventures is a great example. I think I’ve talked to around a dozen people who independently had an idea similar to EAV, but didn’t have the time to get it off the ground. Given a vast space of high-impact projects, I think it makes sense to try many different things and then double down on the projects that show the most promise.
That said, if there are good arguments for not doing some projects or for doing others instead, I think Niel and I would be very keen to update our views.
What sort of goals are you setting to tell whether a project has promise or not?
I wouldn’t view this as throwing in ‘everything and the kitchen sink’. A large majority of the funding will go to four things:
1) Promotion for Singer’s book
2) Promotion for MacAskill’s book, including websites for people to land on before/after reading it
3) Getting EA Global to happen
4) Getting EA Ventures off the ground.
Much of the first three will be outsourced, which is why two people can handle this many projects at once, with the funding necessary to pay professionals.