I think it’s counterproductive to criticize organizations that are beginning to do more marketing/outreach. This type of criticism reinforces EA norms that it’s good to build something, but not good to promote or talk about it. Those norms are a contributing factor to EA being so behind on this type of work.
We should be celebrating organizations that are making an effort on this and encouraging others to do more.
It surprises me that this is seen as the norm—it feels almost antithetical to having impact if you never talk about what you’re doing. At the same time, a lot of EA orgs seem to have put serious effort into marketing in recent years (GWWC, 80k, EA Globals, etc.), and I think that’s good.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s bad to talk about what you’re doing. My concern is more subjective—it’s about the style of marketing. Some of it mimics a kind of entrepreneurial/tech-speak that I personally find aversive. That might just be because this creates an association with Silicon Valley’s culture that has driven AI progress in risky ways, so I react strongly to the vibe. But ultimately, Bluedot may be right that this style resonates with the people they want to hire. If so, great—I’m very open to the idea that my subjective reaction doesn’t line up with what’s impactful.
Re: ‘We should be celebrating organisations that are making an effort on this and encouraging others to do more’ — sure, though I think we may be talking past each other. I agree marketing is important: your ideas won’t have much effect if nobody knows about them. But I’m not for default celebration. Sometimes marketing is misleading, manipulative, or just feels icky, and the value really depends on the context. I’m much more inclined to celebrate marketing that pushes in the direction of truth-seeking. Too often, marketing goes the opposite way. (That’s a general comment, not aimed at Bluedot specifically or any other EA-adjacement org for that matter.)
I totally understand the thinking here and agree it makes sense when you look at it at the individual level. But if you zoom out, the upshot of a community so focused on nitpicks like this is that people leading EA orgs are nervous to say anything about their orgs or work. This leads to research being under distributed, fellowships and courses being under subscribed, ideas largely staying within the community, etc.
EA orgs aren’t going to get better at this work without making some attempts, and right now the incentives are so stacked against trying (because of the nitpick culture) that it’s systematically neglected. I think BlueDot deserves a lot of credit for being willing to try new things.
I think it’s counterproductive to criticize organizations that are beginning to do more marketing/outreach. This type of criticism reinforces EA norms that it’s good to build something, but not good to promote or talk about it. Those norms are a contributing factor to EA being so behind on this type of work.
We should be celebrating organizations that are making an effort on this and encouraging others to do more.
It surprises me that this is seen as the norm—it feels almost antithetical to having impact if you never talk about what you’re doing. At the same time, a lot of EA orgs seem to have put serious effort into marketing in recent years (GWWC, 80k, EA Globals, etc.), and I think that’s good.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s bad to talk about what you’re doing. My concern is more subjective—it’s about the style of marketing. Some of it mimics a kind of entrepreneurial/tech-speak that I personally find aversive. That might just be because this creates an association with Silicon Valley’s culture that has driven AI progress in risky ways, so I react strongly to the vibe. But ultimately, Bluedot may be right that this style resonates with the people they want to hire. If so, great—I’m very open to the idea that my subjective reaction doesn’t line up with what’s impactful.
Re: ‘We should be celebrating organisations that are making an effort on this and encouraging others to do more’ — sure, though I think we may be talking past each other. I agree marketing is important: your ideas won’t have much effect if nobody knows about them. But I’m not for default celebration. Sometimes marketing is misleading, manipulative, or just feels icky, and the value really depends on the context. I’m much more inclined to celebrate marketing that pushes in the direction of truth-seeking. Too often, marketing goes the opposite way. (That’s a general comment, not aimed at Bluedot specifically or any other EA-adjacement org for that matter.)
I totally understand the thinking here and agree it makes sense when you look at it at the individual level. But if you zoom out, the upshot of a community so focused on nitpicks like this is that people leading EA orgs are nervous to say anything about their orgs or work. This leads to research being under distributed, fellowships and courses being under subscribed, ideas largely staying within the community, etc.
EA orgs aren’t going to get better at this work without making some attempts, and right now the incentives are so stacked against trying (because of the nitpick culture) that it’s systematically neglected. I think BlueDot deserves a lot of credit for being willing to try new things.