I largely agree with your take, @Tristan Katz!
āāā
The original post falls in the category, for me, of āthings I respect but donāt necessarily agree with.ā
I think that if you have a movement where an old-timer is saying āhey, watch out, letās make sure we continue to adhere to our principlesā then thatās worth taking seriously. It would not be good to grow the movement but lose what actually makes it valuable in the process. (To an extent, this dilution is probably unavoidableā¦ but it also seems like something to watch out for.)
I do think that there are some very valid criticisms to make of both EA and CEA. (Personal context: I worked at CEA for all of 8 months in 2024-25 and it was a very mixed bag. Some parts I absolutely loved. Some parts made understand why people love to gripe about EA. On the whole, a very eye-opening experience.)
On points 1 & 2:
I think the point the author made about not treating career transitions as the end-all, be-all metric is very good.
I have my own gripes about how we talk about careers in EA. Given how notoriously difficult it is to land an āEA jobā (whatever that actually means), we should have better messaging about what other options are. (Thereās an AIM (?) post about high v. low absorbency paths, which I think is a good start here. I think HIP also does a good job with this.) And donāt even get me started about how much we over-index on credentials!
When I advise mentees, for example, I tend to beat the drum about how there are a lot of different options and how getting one of those jobs is simply one of themā¦ and that engaging with the principles and applying them to your own life/ācareer path is the way to go. My hope is that has the double benefit of a) helping people avoid feeling like shit for not being the 1% all star with an Oxford degree who can actually freaking get hired and b) avoids the funnel effect that @hbesceli mentioned.
But, that dynamic is far from new. And I overall think that the vibes-based āEA is dyingā claim is a bit overstated.
On points 5 & 6:
I dunno, Iām not really sure what people expect out of EA leadership beyond what EA leadership has done.
One of the things I learned while working at CEA was that the extent to which everybody who was working in EA at the time (I was not) had a crisis of confidence when FTX happened. Some of them seem still rather scarred by it.
On one hand, that suggests that @hbesceli is right and thereās more work to be done here because people need trust and closure. On the other hand, I think thatās a sign of how very seriously people took the scandal, and that is evidence to me for a community that cares deeply about trust and doing the right thing. Certainly, people less involved in EA at the time seemed to simply be far less bothered (especially after the initial news wave died down).
This may be a controversial opinion and perhaps Iām being too quick to forgive and forget, butā¦ it seems to me like at some point, you have to just accept that there was 1 bad actor, move on, and get back to doing good work.
In any case, I think that itās perfectly appropriate for CEAās comms strategy to be focused on more positive messaging, especially to the extent that those comms are directed towards movement newbies or outsiders.
@Gemma šø, I had not seen that sports metaphor but itās so good! Thanks for sharing!