This is helpful and I agree with most of it. I think my take here is mostly driven by:
EA atm doesnât seem very practical to take action on except for donating and/âor applying to a small set of jobs funded mostly by one source. My guess is this is reducing the number of âoperatorâ types that get involved and selects for cerebral philosophising types. I heard about 80k and CEA first but it was the practical testable AIM charities that sparked my interest THEN Iâve developed more of an interest in implications from AI and GCRs.
When Iâve run corporate events, Iâve avoided using the term Effective Altruism (despite it being useful and descriptive) because of the existing brand.
I think current cause prioritisation methods are limiting innovation in the field because itâs not teaching people about tools they can then use in different areas. Thereâs probably low hanging fruit that isnât being picked because of this narrow philosophical approach.
Iâm not a comms person so my AIM should be the face of EA thing is too strong. But I do think itâs a better face for more practical less abstract thinkers
I agree with 3 of your points but I disagree with the first one:
EA atm doesnât seem very practical to take action on except for donating and/âor applying to a small set of jobs funded mostly by one source.
On jobs: 80k, Probably Good and Animal Advocacy Careers have job boards with lots of jobs (including all AIM jobs) and get regularly recommended to people seeking jobs. I met someone new to EA at EAGx Berlin a month ago, and 3 days ago they posted on LinkedIn that they started working at The Life You Can Save.
On donations: Iâm biased but I think donations can be a really valuable action, and EA promotes donations to a large number of causes (including AIM).
My guess is this is reducing the number of âoperatorâ types that get involved and selects for cerebral philosophising types.
Itâs really hard for me to tell if this is a good or bad thing, especially because I think itâs possible that things like animal welfare or GCR reduction can plausibly be significantly more effective than more obviously good âpractical testableâ work (and the reason to favour âR&Dâ mentioned previously)
I heard about 80k and CEA first but it was the practical testable AIM charities that sparked my interest THEN Iâve developed more of an interest in implications from AI and GCRs.
Not really a disagreement, but I think itâs great that thereâs cross-pollination, with people getting into AIM from 80k and CEA, and into 80k and CEA from AIM
Earning to give is not a good description for what I do because Iâm not optimising across career paths for high pay for donationsâmore like the highest pay I can get for a 9-5.
I think of it more as âSelf-funded community builderâ
On cross pollination, yeah I think we agree. The self sorting between cause areas based on intuition and instinct isnât great thoughâit means that there are opportunities to innovate that are missed in both camps.
This is helpful and I agree with most of it. I think my take here is mostly driven by:
EA atm doesnât seem very practical to take action on except for donating and/âor applying to a small set of jobs funded mostly by one source. My guess is this is reducing the number of âoperatorâ types that get involved and selects for cerebral philosophising types. I heard about 80k and CEA first but it was the practical testable AIM charities that sparked my interest THEN Iâve developed more of an interest in implications from AI and GCRs.
When Iâve run corporate events, Iâve avoided using the term Effective Altruism (despite it being useful and descriptive) because of the existing brand.
I think current cause prioritisation methods are limiting innovation in the field because itâs not teaching people about tools they can then use in different areas. Thereâs probably low hanging fruit that isnât being picked because of this narrow philosophical approach.
Iâm not a comms person so my AIM should be the face of EA thing is too strong. But I do think itâs a better face for more practical less abstract thinkers
I agree with 3 of your points but I disagree with the first one:
On jobs: 80k, Probably Good and Animal Advocacy Careers have job boards with lots of jobs (including all AIM jobs) and get regularly recommended to people seeking jobs. I met someone new to EA at EAGx Berlin a month ago, and 3 days ago they posted on LinkedIn that they started working at The Life You Can Save.
On donations: Iâm biased but I think donations can be a really valuable action, and EA promotes donations to a large number of causes (including AIM).
Itâs really hard for me to tell if this is a good or bad thing, especially because I think itâs possible that things like animal welfare or GCR reduction can plausibly be significantly more effective than more obviously good âpractical testableâ work (and the reason to favour âR&Dâ mentioned previously)
Not really a disagreement, but I think itâs great that thereâs cross-pollination, with people getting into AIM from 80k and CEA, and into 80k and CEA from AIM
I agree donations and switching careers are really important! HoweverâI think those shouldnât be the only ways.
Having your job be EA makes it difficult to be independentâlivelihoods rely on this and so it makes EA as a whole less robust IMO. I like the Tour of Service model https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââwaeDDnaQBTCNNu7hq/ââea-tours-of-service
Earning to give is not a good description for what I do because Iâm not optimising across career paths for high pay for donationsâmore like the highest pay I can get for a 9-5.
I think of it more as âSelf-funded community builderâ
On cross pollination, yeah I think we agree. The self sorting between cause areas based on intuition and instinct isnât great thoughâit means that there are opportunities to innovate that are missed in both camps.