gergo

Why Chris­ti­ans for Im­pact In­vests in Mar­ket­ing (BC #15)

• gergo 26 Jan 2026 17:01 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Your dona­tions mat­ter, but your col­league’s even more

  It was interesting to read how explicit you are about being associated with EA, as many organisations (incl. in the giving space) are moving away from this.

  We initially propsed to pitch that the principles of effective altruism allure to most employee’s background
  
  first time for colleagues to hear about effective altruism principles.

  Why do you think this worked for you? One reason this worked is that you seem to highlight the principles as opposed to the movement itself?

  Great work!

The Three Pillars: A The­ory of Change for Groups (BC #14)

• gergo 23 Jan 2026 10:48 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ethai’s comment on: EA orgs over­hire comms and un­der­hire growth

  if you DM me your whatsapp number I can add you :)

• gergo 22 Jan 2026 18:17 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ethai’s comment on: EA orgs over­hire comms and un­der­hire growth

  RIP, EA comms slack!

  There is a whatsapp group now!

• gergo 15 Jan 2026 14:21 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Clara Torres Latorre 🔸’s comment on: The Field Build­ing Blog is now called Build­ing Capacity

  Haha thanks for the reminder, added it as a hyperlink now x)

The Field Build­ing Blog is now called Build­ing Capacity

• gergo 14 Jan 2026 8:48 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Mas­ter­docs of EA com­mu­nity build­ing guides and resources

  Just saw that this is still being updated, as of early 2026. How amazing!

• gergo 13 Jan 2026 11:23 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: An­nounc­ing Im­pact First (We’re Hiring)

  Alicia is great, working with her on building this organisation sounds like a great opportunty. I hope you get a lot of applications!

• gergo 10 Jan 2026 21:32 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ladyjedi’s comment on: Why ex­pe­rienced pro­fes­sion­als fail to land high-im­pact roles (FBB #5)

  Awesome, good luck on your AI Safety journey. In addition to mine, I recommend these articles:

  • How Unofficial Work Gets You Hired: Building Your Surface Area for Serendipity

  • There is No EA Sorting Hat

  • Your Goal Isn’t Really to Get a Job

  • Stop Applying And Get To Work

  • Why experienced professionals fail to land high-impact roles (FBB #5) (Just putting this here because I want to be able to quickly share the full list with others.)
    
    

• gergo 6 Jan 2026 18:38 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How to Im­prove EA’s Pres­ence on YouTube

  Thanks for writing this up, great post!

• gergo 6 Jan 2026 18:10 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MatthiasE’s comment on: Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)

  The example of the student is if fair, but my claim is that you can get those effects in cheaper ways than a retreat. For any given community retreat, only a couple people will attend with profiles for which it’s realistic that a retreat can help them get a role (see my point about retreats having too low of a bar). I would want to support these in other ways.

  I’m worried though that the scale is too small to power an RCT. But I do like your idea on that we should try to measure the effectiveness of these interventions more rigorously!

• gergo 6 Jan 2026 18:05 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MatthiasE’s comment on: Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)

  Maybe I misunderstood, but if retreats and conferences/​summits are complements, this argument should not apply?

  They might be complementary, but most communities don’t have the resources to do both. (Unless they are a year apart, at which point any momentum you get fades).

In­ter­view with Carolina from ML4Good (FBB #13)

• gergo 2 Jan 2026 15:00 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: mariuswenk’s comment on: Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)

  Thanks for pointing out that we actually have some more data on costs from GSF retreats.

  On the other hand, I think the argument of my post is being left unaddressed: that we should prioritise summits over community retreats. As Ollie mentioned above, larger events provide the same benefit per participant. EAGx Conferences may be at a similar cost per participant compared to retreats, but I would be really surprised if the same was true for summits, which are only one day. I would love to get a better sense of how expensive summits are per person thoguh!

• gergo 30 Dec 2025 14:00 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: In­tro­duc­ing the Mox Guest Program

  I have had the chance to visit Mox recently (not as part of this program), and I strongly recommend that anyone to take advantage of this opportunity. It’s an amazing space with value-aligned leadership as well as great members. It was long overdue for SF to have such a co-working space! :)

• gergo 21 Dec 2025 16:03 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: GV 🔸’s comment on: Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)

  You’re right that these aren’t the same kinds of events. My claim is about prioritisation under limited time and resources: communities should focus on the events that are more cost-effective.

  If a community only has the capacity to run one event per year, I would prefer it to be a summit rather than a retreat. If the community is large enough to run an EAGx, I would prioritise that, and then add a summit around six months later if capacity allows.

• gergo 21 Dec 2025 16:00 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Kestrel🔸’s comment on: Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)

  I’m not sure if CEA gives out travel funding for EA summits, but my take is that they should do so only in very rare cases. One-day conferences, at least in most places, should focus on people who live in the city they are held.

• gergo 21 Dec 2025 15:58 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Brian4’s comment on: Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)

  Thanks for these comments!

  I agree that retreat costs can vary a lot, and it’s quite possible that many retreats are cheaper today than the ones Ollie looked at. That said, the best data we currently have still suggests that retreats-as-they’ve-typically-been-run are relatively expensive per person per connection compared to larger events.

  I’m very open to updating on newer or more representative data. My prior, though, is that while retreats may have become more frugal, conferences and summits have as well — EA events overall seem meaningfully leaner than they were a few years ago.

  On outcomes: I don’t think I claimed that larger events produce better outcomes per person. As you note, Ollie finds those are roughly similar. My claim is instead about scale: one-day summits produce many more total positive outcomes for a similar or lower cost, largely because they involve more people and avoid subsidised travel and accommodation. (Or they should)

  Given that, I would be surprised if a typical 2–3 day, fully subsidised retreat (which is the default in EA) ends up more cost-effective per person per connection than a one-day, local summit — even if some individual retreats are run quite cheaply.

Against (most) com­mu­nity re­treats (FBB #12)