The Princeton Futurist Society (Envision’s previous name) has only been around for one semester and already has 91 members without a strong marketing effort and with an off-putting name
I’m aware of this from the main post, but I think it’s pretty weak evidence.
I also don’t think we’re developing our message from scratch. We’re combining several different messages into one; ie the massive potential of technology, and the importance of safety in realizing that potential. There’s many existing resources to draw from and existing ideas which make it a lot easier to build off of what exists, especially as compared to EA
You’re essentially trying to integrate the idea of concern for existential risk into tech development, which seems like a similarly difficult task to EA.
Moreover, EA had many excellent existing resources and powerful ideas to draw on, such as the importance of global poverty, the biases literature, the evidence-based movement, and so on. I don’t see a significant difference in difficulty here.
most entrepreneurs are not attracted to EA
Entrepreneurs are perhaps EAs best target audience. Almost all of GiveWell’s donors are either from tech or finance, and then they partnered with Dustin Moskovitz. Ried Hoffman and the Gates Foundation endorsed Will’s book. Our blog posts are regularly front page of Hacker News. I could go on.
I disagree that there’s much overlap between EA and Envision
Overall I agree there’s some nice features of the messaging that are different (more positive frame etc.) but I think these benefits are relatively small, and don’t obviously outweigh the large costs of setting up a new org, in an area that’s already extremely crowded by EA effort, and potentially diverting attention from EA groups.
I think a more cost-effective strategy would be to try to spread these messages through existing groups. Or by trying to integrate the positive features of the messaging into EA, perhaps starting in the Princeton group. I think with some ingenuity you could get the Princeton EA group to seriously engage 5% of students then become self-sustaining, and that would be an extremely valuable project that would only take a couple of years.
I’m aware of this from the main post, but I think it’s pretty weak evidence.
You’re essentially trying to integrate the idea of concern for existential risk into tech development, which seems like a similarly difficult task to EA.
Moreover, EA had many excellent existing resources and powerful ideas to draw on, such as the importance of global poverty, the biases literature, the evidence-based movement, and so on. I don’t see a significant difference in difficulty here.
Entrepreneurs are perhaps EAs best target audience. Almost all of GiveWell’s donors are either from tech or finance, and then they partnered with Dustin Moskovitz. Ried Hoffman and the Gates Foundation endorsed Will’s book. Our blog posts are regularly front page of Hacker News. I could go on.
Overall I agree there’s some nice features of the messaging that are different (more positive frame etc.) but I think these benefits are relatively small, and don’t obviously outweigh the large costs of setting up a new org, in an area that’s already extremely crowded by EA effort, and potentially diverting attention from EA groups.
I think a more cost-effective strategy would be to try to spread these messages through existing groups. Or by trying to integrate the positive features of the messaging into EA, perhaps starting in the Princeton group. I think with some ingenuity you could get the Princeton EA group to seriously engage 5% of students then become self-sustaining, and that would be an extremely valuable project that would only take a couple of years.