We might just fully agree. I don’t think there were ever career-long professional benefits to EA for people specializing in specific cause areas that outweigh those at cause-specific conferences (but please come teach community builders/members/young people about your work at EAG).
I think EA has always been for:
figuring out where you want to specialize, and
building/maintaining your knowledge and motivation around the world’s needs generally
The first is professionally relevant early in your career (or for generalists looking to lateral), but not so much later. The latter is personal/social/intellectual and perhaps a broad way that a specialist can give back by helping people working on the first thing.
If it is settled that AI is the thing to do, maybe point one has become irrelevant. I dispute this,[1] but less so than point two, which I think has strong independent value.
It may also be helpful context that I personally am not an expected utiltity maximizer. I’m doing my project because I want people to engage with EA arguments and then do what they want to do with them, as opposed to doing what I want them to do in a more superficial sense.
For example, it may just be critical to understand what else might be ITN in the world to understand why AI is important, or to think clearly about what its implications for welfare are. If those other problems aren’t really in the room or fully explored, it’s easy to miss crucial considerations. Similarly, what do we mean by “AI” and “settled?” Lots of EA epistemology can help here. Relatedly, the moral context of everything happening in the world can provide motivation that might otherwise be lacking.
Hm interesting. One reaction I have is that in-person communities have different functions, and it might be worth specifying more precisely what function you envision in-person EA communities having in 2026 (and how this has maybe changed?). Here are some different models I could see; 2 and 3 seem more promising to me than 1 or 4:
EA as a professional community (like a professional society with professional conferences). This is historically what most in-person EA events have been, but as I’ve argued, I think this kind of in-person community makes less and less sense (though it probably continues to make sense for large sub-groups of EAs, like AI safety EAs, GPR EAs, and so on).
EA as a moral/spiritual community (like Unitarian Universalism). I suspect some people will bristle at the word “spiritual,” but I think what you’ve said about motivation is true/important, and EA would do well to lean into this. As a kid, I always liked religious services—despite not believing in God—because I enjoyed the music, (some of) the sermons/stories, and the quiet meditation. It would be culty to lean too hard in the direction of an “EA service,” but it could be cool to design social events that explicitly try to get at this (i.e., leave people feeling hopeful/reflective/recharged, rather than doom-y). I suspect a lot of EAs—including myself, lol—would eye roll at the concept though, so it could be hard to get off the ground.
EA as a social community organized around a shared interest (like a debate team). Debaters don’t formally debate with each other when they socialize (ie, in a structured way), but the things that make them like debate also make them socially compatible. Similarly, maybe we could think of EAs as actually practicing their EA separately, but uniting over the things that make them like EA. I suspect this is a fairly promising model.
EA as a social community organized around a shared activity (like a hiking club). A hiking club exists so people can hike together and, as my dad often notes after spending the day with his, may not be that socially compatible in other ways. I could see EA being like this too—maybe I don’t vibe with the AI safety people, but we could have interesting/fun convos about EA? I’m also not sure this works though.
Good breakdown. I agree on 2 & 3 being promising too. One of the first event models I came up with for my project was EA reading + sermon-or-constructive debate related to the reading. It’s not cultish if there are no rites/titles/statements of faith/garb/iconography.
I have a much more positive feelings about EAs than rationalists, and I think this is quite normal for people who came to EA from outside rationalism. I mean, I actually liked the vast majority of rationalists I’ve met a lot-when I worked in a rationalist office in Prague it had a lovely culture-but I think only about .5 of rationalists like EA as an idea, and my suspicion is that “dislikes EA” amongst rationalists correlates fairly heavily with “has political views that make me uncomfortable”.
We might just fully agree. I don’t think there were ever career-long professional benefits to EA for people specializing in specific cause areas that outweigh those at cause-specific conferences (but please come teach community builders/members/young people about your work at EAG).
I think EA has always been for:
figuring out where you want to specialize, and
building/maintaining your knowledge and motivation around the world’s needs generally
The first is professionally relevant early in your career (or for generalists looking to lateral), but not so much later. The latter is personal/social/intellectual and perhaps a broad way that a specialist can give back by helping people working on the first thing.
If it is settled that AI is the thing to do, maybe point one has become irrelevant. I dispute this,[1] but less so than point two, which I think has strong independent value.
It may also be helpful context that I personally am not an expected utiltity maximizer. I’m doing my project because I want people to engage with EA arguments and then do what they want to do with them, as opposed to doing what I want them to do in a more superficial sense.
For example, it may just be critical to understand what else might be ITN in the world to understand why AI is important, or to think clearly about what its implications for welfare are. If those other problems aren’t really in the room or fully explored, it’s easy to miss crucial considerations. Similarly, what do we mean by “AI” and “settled?” Lots of EA epistemology can help here. Relatedly, the moral context of everything happening in the world can provide motivation that might otherwise be lacking.
Hm interesting. One reaction I have is that in-person communities have different functions, and it might be worth specifying more precisely what function you envision in-person EA communities having in 2026 (and how this has maybe changed?). Here are some different models I could see; 2 and 3 seem more promising to me than 1 or 4:
EA as a professional community (like a professional society with professional conferences). This is historically what most in-person EA events have been, but as I’ve argued, I think this kind of in-person community makes less and less sense (though it probably continues to make sense for large sub-groups of EAs, like AI safety EAs, GPR EAs, and so on).
EA as a moral/spiritual community (like Unitarian Universalism). I suspect some people will bristle at the word “spiritual,” but I think what you’ve said about motivation is true/important, and EA would do well to lean into this. As a kid, I always liked religious services—despite not believing in God—because I enjoyed the music, (some of) the sermons/stories, and the quiet meditation. It would be culty to lean too hard in the direction of an “EA service,” but it could be cool to design social events that explicitly try to get at this (i.e., leave people feeling hopeful/reflective/recharged, rather than doom-y). I suspect a lot of EAs—including myself, lol—would eye roll at the concept though, so it could be hard to get off the ground.
EA as a social community organized around a shared interest (like a debate team). Debaters don’t formally debate with each other when they socialize (ie, in a structured way), but the things that make them like debate also make them socially compatible. Similarly, maybe we could think of EAs as actually practicing their EA separately, but uniting over the things that make them like EA. I suspect this is a fairly promising model.
EA as a social community organized around a shared activity (like a hiking club). A hiking club exists so people can hike together and, as my dad often notes after spending the day with his, may not be that socially compatible in other ways. I could see EA being like this too—maybe I don’t vibe with the AI safety people, but we could have interesting/fun convos about EA? I’m also not sure this works though.
Good breakdown. I agree on 2 & 3 being promising too. One of the first event models I came up with for my project was EA reading + sermon-or-constructive debate related to the reading. It’s not cultish if there are no rites/titles/statements of faith/garb/iconography.
“There is already an option for people who want to hang out with the people who are currently attracted to effective altruism. It is called “the rationalist community.””
I have a much more positive feelings about EAs than rationalists, and I think this is quite normal for people who came to EA from outside rationalism. I mean, I actually liked the vast majority of rationalists I’ve met a lot-when I worked in a rationalist office in Prague it had a lovely culture-but I think only about .5 of rationalists like EA as an idea, and my suspicion is that “dislikes EA” amongst rationalists correlates fairly heavily with “has political views that make me uncomfortable”.