I’d feel pretty gaslit if someone said EA was going swimmingly and unaffected by the tribulations of the last couple of years, perhaps less so if they think there’s been a bounce back after an initial decline but, you know, I’d want to see the data for that.
I agree with this fwiw, that seems fair
Thanks for adding more here :) I think that evidence is more persuasive, though still reads a little vibe-y and data-free, and involves reading intention into some actions that might not be there.
Ever since November 2022, the EA movement has only seemed to know criticism and scandal. Some have even gone so far to declare that EA is dead or dying,[1] or no longer worth standing behind,[2] or otherwise disassociate themselves from the movement even if outside observers would clearly identify them as being ‘EA’.[3] This negative environment that EA finds itself in is, I think, indicative of its state as a social movement in decline.
I don’t think the claim “EA is in decline” is well-defended in this post. You link to a few naysayers here, but I don’t think that’s good evidence. “EA is in decline” is also self-fulfilling—it might decline if everyone’s saying it’s declining—so I expect some people say this because they want it to happen, not because they’ve reviewed the evidence and have concluded this is what’s happening.
Colleagues of mine can pull together more evidence against, but as two examples that are salient to me:
EA Global London 2025 is on track to be the biggest EA conference ever.
We expect to welcome more people to EA events (EAG, EAGx, EA Summits) this year than ever before.
I find that hard to square with “EA is in decline”. To be clear, I think the claim might be true, but it’s an important enough question that it deserves some more thoughtful study and data, rather than vibes on Twitter.
I can pass this request on to the EA Nigeria team
I don’t know why GWWC has this limit so can’t comment on the request here but I think it’s really cool that you’re considering donating a significant portion of your monthly income to effective charities despite not earning much (especially compared to the global population). That’s a selfless and inspiring act.
P.S. I hope you’ll attend EAGxNigeria!
(I remember in the early days of 80,000 Hours, we spent a whole day hosting an UHNW. He ultimately gave £5000. The week afterwards, a one-hour call with Julia Wise—a social worker at the time—resulted in a larger donation.)
I learn about new ways that Julia had a significant impact on this community every few months, and it never ceases to give me a sense of awe and appreciation for her selflessness. EA would not be what it is today without Julia.
Just a heads up that this was posted on April Fool’s day, but it seems like a serious post. You might want to add a quick disclaimer at the top for today :)
We (the CEA Events Team) recently posted about how we cut costs for EA Global last year. That’s a big contributing factor, and involved hiring someone (a production associate) to help us cut overall costs.
It seems like you’re making a few slightly different points:
There are much more pressing things to discuss than this question.
This question will alienate people and harm the EA brand because it’s too philosophical/weird.
The fact that the EA Forum team chose this question given the circumstances will alienate people (kind of a mix between 1 and 2).
I’m sympathetic to 1, but disagree with 2 and 3 for the reasons I outlined in my first comment.
I disagree that we should avoid discussing topics so as to avoid putting people off this community.[1]
I think some of EA’s greatest contributions come from being willing to voice, discuss and seriously tackle questions that seemed weird or out of touch at the time (e.g. AI safety). If we couldn’t do that, and instead remained within the overton window, I think we lose a lot of the value of taking EA principles seriously.
If someone finds the discussion of extinction or incredibly good/bad futures offputting, this community likely isn’t for them. That happens a lot!
Perhaps for some distasteful-to-almost-everyone topics, but this topic doesn’t seem like that at all.
Really excited to see EAGx return to Prague!
few people are thinking about how to navigate our way to a worthwhile future.
This might be true on the kinds of scales EAs are thinking about (potentially enourmous value, long time horizons) but is it not the case that many people want to steer humanity in a better direction? E.g. the Left, environmentalists, libertarians, … ~all political movements?
I worry EAs think of this as some unique and obscure thing to think about, when it isn’t.
(on the other hand, people neglect small probabilities of disastrous outcomes)
It seems plausible to me we might be approaching a “time of perils’ where total x-risk is unacceptably high and will continue to be as we develop powerful AI systems, but might decrease later since we can use AI systems to tackle x-risk (though that seems hard and risky in its own myriad ways).
Broadly think we should still prioritise avoiding catastrophes in this phase, and bet on being able to steer later but low confidence.
(30 is the mean, median is 29)
Walking around the conference halls this February at EAG Global in the Bay Area, the average age seemed to be in the mid-20s or so.
The average age of EAG Bay Area 2025 feedback survey respondents was 30, FYI.
I don’t think this removes the thrust of your questions, which I think are good and important questions, but people do seem to consistently underestimate the average age of EA Global attendees.
In our survey data from EAG London 2021, where we tried this, we see that the virtual participants had a lower likelihood to recommend (8.1 vs. 9.1) and made ~4x fewer connections than in-person attendees (10.2 vs. 2.4).
I think Lizka expressed the main case against well (as does Neel)
lots of in-person attendees or speakers who would want to interact with people who are attending virtually are too busy with the in-person conference, the organizers are split between the two sides (and largely focus on the more involved in-person side), and there’s a bit more confusion about how everything works.
I expect that this effect will be even stronger now that there are regular virtual events (i.e. fewer virtual attendees would attend hybrid events). If the main benefit comes from watching content, that’s usually posted on Youtube shortly after the event (though not livestreamed)
I haven’t visited CEELAR and I don’t know how impactful it has been, but one thing I’ve always admired about you via your work on this project is your grit and agency. When you thought it was a good idea back in 2018, you went ahead and bought the place. When you needed funding, you asked and wrote a lot about what was needed. You clearly care a lot about this project, and that really shows. I hope your successor will too.
I’m reminded of Lizka’s Invisible Impact post. It’s easy to spot flaws in projects that actually materialise but hard/impossible to criticise the absence of projects that never materialised. I get the sense you aren’t error adverse, and you go out and try things. I think more people in the community should try things like CEELAR and be more like you in this regard.
All the best :)
EAGx undergraduate acceptance rate across 2024 and 2025 = ~82%
EAGx first-timer undergraduate acceptance rate across 2024 and 2025 = ~76%
Obvious caveat that if we tell lots of people that the acceptance rate is high, we might attract more people without any context on EA and the rate would go down.
(I’ve not closely checked the data)