I don’t know how much you know about policy work by EA organizations besides CEA/GPP, so I thought I’d fill you in. There’s a lot going on.
We think that policy is an important area for effective altruism to develop into
Some people have argued against this. I’m also skeptical.
The Strategic Artificial Intelligence Research Centre (SAIRC)
The Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil)
Sentience Politics
Stiftung fer Effektiver Altruismus/Effective Altruism Foundation (SEA/EAF)
Effective Altruism Policy Analytics (EAPA)
are all doing policy work. That’s five different organizations closely associated with effective altruism working on policy in three different countries (United States; United Kingdom; Switzerland). Even if we discount SAIRC’s association with EA, that’ still at least four organizations. I don’t know how much support policy work has in the EA community at large, outside of all these organizations, but I’m assuming if it’s enough that the sentiment won’t go away soon. It seems the effective altruism movement will be interested in policy work even if CEA itself isn’t.
I doubt there’s currently much value to be had in coordinating policy efforts between different countries. Within the EA community, solidarity to work on policy internationally, and sharing resources/research/talent between organizations might be valuable.
You said CEA has a lot of brand capital it would be sad to see blown on political projects which don’t bear fruit, and may hurt CEA’s and effective altruism’s reputation. I think CEA has more brand capital than these other organizations, except perhaps Open Phil. Of course, Open Phil is in the (non-profit) business of grantmaking, so their influence on policy will be through other organizations. This may distance them from controversy or blowback for programs run by their grantees, which are probably more experienced in navigating potential pitfalls of policy work anyway.
As a flagship organization of the EA movement, there’s also a sense in which CEA draws from a pool of brand capital that belongs to the community at large. If CEA does something to discredit itself (e.g. publicly recommends a controversial policy), it’s possible for other EA organizations, or people who have identified publicly as EAs, to catch flak
Sentience Politics and SEA/EAF seem likely to escalate rather than de-escalate policy work in the near future. If either of them discredits themselves, it might only hurt the EA brand in the German-speaking world and Scandinavia, or perhaps continental Europe. However, the work SEA/EAF has done to spread and grow effective altruism in Europe, and the projects this has enabled, seems to me one of the most promising initiatives in the whole community. So, they hold much of EA’s potential in their hands.
Anyone of the opinion effective altruism should be warier of entering the field of policy needs to keep these considerations in mind, not just what CEA does.
I don’t know how much you know about policy work by EA organizations besides CEA/GPP, so I thought I’d fill you in. There’s a lot going on.
The Strategic Artificial Intelligence Research Centre (SAIRC)
The Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil)
Sentience Politics
Stiftung fer Effektiver Altruismus/Effective Altruism Foundation (SEA/EAF)
Effective Altruism Policy Analytics (EAPA)
are all doing policy work. That’s five different organizations closely associated with effective altruism working on policy in three different countries (United States; United Kingdom; Switzerland). Even if we discount SAIRC’s association with EA, that’ still at least four organizations. I don’t know how much support policy work has in the EA community at large, outside of all these organizations, but I’m assuming if it’s enough that the sentiment won’t go away soon. It seems the effective altruism movement will be interested in policy work even if CEA itself isn’t.
I doubt there’s currently much value to be had in coordinating policy efforts between different countries. Within the EA community, solidarity to work on policy internationally, and sharing resources/research/talent between organizations might be valuable.
You said CEA has a lot of brand capital it would be sad to see blown on political projects which don’t bear fruit, and may hurt CEA’s and effective altruism’s reputation. I think CEA has more brand capital than these other organizations, except perhaps Open Phil. Of course, Open Phil is in the (non-profit) business of grantmaking, so their influence on policy will be through other organizations. This may distance them from controversy or blowback for programs run by their grantees, which are probably more experienced in navigating potential pitfalls of policy work anyway.
Sentience Politics and SEA/EAF seem likely to escalate rather than de-escalate policy work in the near future. If either of them discredits themselves, it might only hurt the EA brand in the German-speaking world and Scandinavia, or perhaps continental Europe. However, the work SEA/EAF has done to spread and grow effective altruism in Europe, and the projects this has enabled, seems to me one of the most promising initiatives in the whole community. So, they hold much of EA’s potential in their hands.
Anyone of the opinion effective altruism should be warier of entering the field of policy needs to keep these considerations in mind, not just what CEA does.