Hi! I work on the EA Global team and I post a lot of my thoughts on Twitter :)
frances_lorenz
Karma: 1,734
Typical anti-feedback-doomers making everyone scared to plug their ears, where does it end?
Thank you, I have no reply.
I think this is very brave.
This is a really good idea actually, but I have to be fundamentally opposed to this comment, sorry :(
Okay, Claude says, “telling someone “Do better” could technically be considered feedback, but it’s extremely limited and not very constructive,” which makes it feel like not-quite-feedback. To your first point, I fear I’ve been shadow banned by the forum for speaking out :(
What if I’m not open to feedback?
In defense of quantifying suffering
That’s correct, thanks Toby :) Although, it’s really important for us to know if our advertising has been reaching people. We definitely want to know if this post is the first time someone’s hearing about EAG, especially if they would have attended had they heard about it earlier.
I’m definitely sympathetic to this point, yep. I think it would be very difficult to write a post of this nature if you felt that your participation in EA was being wrongly affected by CH.
At the same time, I think both the negative and positive experiences are difficult to talk about, due to their sensitive nature. I felt comfortable writing this because the incident is now four years old and I’m lucky to be in an incredibly supportive environment; many who have had positive experiences will not want to write about them. Thus, I am not confident there is a “large information asymmetry” in either direction, there are deterrents to information sharing on both sides.
I think the unfortunate reality is: Community Health is not infallible, I would be very keen to hear about mistakes they’ve made or genuine concerns, as would the team, I’m certain. I’m also acutely aware that a lot of people who exhibit poor behaviour, and are then prevented from taking certain actions within the community, will claim to have been slighted. People who cross clear boundaries and then face consequences do not often go, “this seems right and fair to me, thank you for taking these measures against me to protect others.” This is certainly not to say, “no one who says they’ve been blacklisted or slighted can be correct.” This is to say that, I am not sure how to update on claims that CH has damaged people’s lives without more information.
My experience with the Community Health team at CEA
Bruce is completely correct, yep. We’ll definitely send out reminder emails. If you run into any confusion, you can always email hello@eaglobal.org.
Hello! Yep, that’s correct. After the application deadline passes for an upcoming event, you’re welcome to re-apply to EA Global. The bar does not change at all when you reapply. We don’t factor that in. You are very welcome to reuse old applications, the system should automatically auto-fill previous responses that you’ve used.
Hey! To your last point — yeah, our goal is to approve applications that we suspect meet the bar. In cases where we’re unsure and would benefit from more information, we’ll request that (for full context, our requests are always unspecific and default to a general ask for additional information).
Hey Jason! This is a cool idea. At the same time, we face capacity constraints and aren’t always able to implement changes that would increase application review time or add more moving parts. In general, I’m wary of the application review process becoming too convoluted—I want to save people time, and also, I think it’s okay to ask people to fill out the application. Applicants are very welcome to use bullet points, the application doesn’t need to be long or polished by any means. The system should also save your responses from previous years, to save some time.
Hey Scott, thanks for the comment!
I understand your argument as: allowing anyone to attend would mean the event includes all the people currently approved, plus those deterred by the admissions bar, plus some attendees who we would have previously rejected. If that latter group is small (e.g., 16%), that might not have much of an effect, and the event reaches more of our target audience.
Here’s why we’re not confident in this reasoning:
Our primary concern is that removing the bar would significantly increase the volume of applications from people we’d otherwise reject, beyond the current number of applicants who are not approved (since there is no longer a cost to applying).
It’s unclear if removing it would draw in a sufficient number of “deterred” people, to make up for the other costs.
Much of the event’s impact comes from the quality of connections attendees make, whether through Swapcard or impromptu networking (lunches, meet ups, etc.). If the average attendee’s fit drops, we worry this would significantly reduce the expected quality of those interactions, especially impromptu ones. That could, in turn, have a greater negative impact than I think you’re imagining and worsening spin-off effects over time (e.g. attendees mingle less, senior professionals are less keen to attend over time).
EA Global: London 2025
EA Global: Bay Area 2025
What is the admissions bar for EA Global?
Hey there! I work on the EA Global team, thanks for the question :) At EAG London, each floor of the venue will have an all gender bathroom. For future reference, our team can always be reached by emailing hello@eaglobal.org (forum questions usually get flagged to us, but we don’t actively monitor the forum).
Hey Neel! This reply upset me so much that I’m now planning to make AGI and actively oppose AI safety :) Hope it was worth it!