Comment author: Richenda  (EA Profile) 13 April 2018 01:23:07AM 2 points [-]

Hi Dunja,

Actually there is empirical research on this! LEAN interviewed EA group organisers as part of the 2017 LEAN Impact Assessment, and actually face to face, in person experiences such as retreats and EAG frequently came up as the most significant, landmark influence for a fair few successful organisers in actually kick starting them into getting something going, and also giving them the confidence, reassurance and optimism to see it as a worthwhile investment of their time.

I was slightly surprised by how much of a big factor this was for people, but the evidence seems pretty strongly supportive at this stage.

https://rtcharity.org/2017-lean-impact-assessment-qualitative-findings/

Comment author: Dunja 14 April 2018 11:47:29AM 2 points [-]

Hi Richenda, great stuff, thanks for sharing the link! that's indeed a big impact and it's valuable to know for future events. It fits very well with what Evan and Jan have written below :)

Comment author: Evan_Gaensbauer 11 April 2018 03:31:01AM 4 points [-]

Are you skeptical of the impact of these retreat-style events, or large congregations of effective altruists in general? Conferences like EAG faced similar skepticism of their impact early on. While there is a sense of hype at EAG events, especially if they're primarily attended by fresher community members, the expected value of EAG events is high. The value per person is high-variance, and the median impact per attendee may be low, but the mean impact of EAG per attendee is high. This is because for those high-impact individuals who weren't connected to EA before attending an EAG conference who then got highly involved, they transform the movement. For example, I know several EAs who within a few months of attending EAG, and hardly having heard of EA before then, became key staffers at EA organizations. I expect several EA organizations could attest the same. Given surveys of EA organizations place the value of identifying and hiring the best candidate for a new position as equivalent to >$100k USD; each EAG event likely results in multiple such outcomes; and EAG events don't themselves cost that much, at the least I expect every EAG conference breaks even in expected value. That's not an impressive outcome, but the networking and coordination value EAGs add to the EA movement are a crucial institution. We haven't found an alternative process which satisfies the same goals as well. We can't predict very well in advance exactly which individuals will generate the greatest value by attending EAG events, but that from the pool of people who attend EAG tons of value is undeniably generated justifies the costs of organizing and hosting these events.

Of course EAG events are professional conferences the Centre for Effective Altruism and others optimize for maximizing impact as a result of networking between EAs. Local/regional EA retreats are a different kind of event: more casual, and less goal-oriented. I don't think local EA groups without the assistance of professional EA organizations often have the capacity to organize an event as big and impactful as an EAG conference.

So that leaves the question of the expected value of retreats, i.e., whether its worth local EA communities trying to host them. The direct financial costs (assuming the 75 Euro/person/weekend price is typical, that isn't high) aren't high, as the time spent organizing these events probably primarily comes from volunteers. I figure the primary cost of organizing EA retreats would be the opportunity cost. That is, could the time spent organizing a local EA retreat by all EAs involved be better spent on something else?

While I think local EA groups could identify better uses of their time, that's not the same as saying they will identify better uses of their time. If that's free time that'd otherwise go unused, I expect organizing retreats is worthwhile.

I hope these thoughts help frame thinking about evaluating the EV of EA retreats.

My guess is that events organized for an effective knowledge-building in the given domain (including concrete skills required for a very concrete tasks in the given community, some of which were a part of your event) would be those that would make more of a difference. Say, an EA community realizes they lack the knowledge of gathering empirical data or the knowledge of spreading their ideas and attracting new members. In that case, one could invite experts on these issues to provide concrete intensive crash-courses, equipping the given community so that it can afterwards put these skills to action. This means a hard-working event, without much extra-entertainment activities, but with a high knowledge gain. I think networking and getting to know others is nice, but not as essential as the know-how and the willingness to apply it (which may then spontaneously result in a well networked community).

As an aside, I've wanted to do more things like this with EAs in Canada, but there hasn't been a good opportunity to do so. A highly focused, goal-oriented retreat is something I hadn't thought of trying, but might be a great idea. Thanks for the inspiration.

Comment author: Dunja 14 April 2018 11:44:56AM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for this, Evan, I was primarily referring to smaller events which aren't primarily targeted at attracting new people. Though now that you mention it, I find the bigger events even worse haha! I was at one bigger EA event and while I perfectly understand it can introduce many people into the topic, and make people passionate about the cause, I haven't experienced the same mainly because I haven't learned much really. But this probably depends on personality traits, expectations etc. :) In general, your argument makes very much sense: if sufficiently many people are around, for some of them this will work (and the above post by Richenda shows there is even some empirical evidence for that). For me, forums like this are e.g. way more interesting ;) At the end of the day, it's probably the best if there is a variety of venues/platforms for different kind of people and interests.

Comment author: saulius  (EA Profile) 07 April 2018 02:58:01PM *  5 points [-]

I partially agree with you but I'll focus on what I disagree with :)

“those who're enthusiastic about EA and/or willing to contribute in a certain way will do so anyway. For them online information, or a single talk may even be enough.”

Personally, hanging out with EAs makes me A LOT more enthusiastic about EA and I work on my EA projects much more as a result. I basically forget about EA when I’m away from the community for long periods of time. I might be an outlier here but I’m sure that the same is true for others to a lesser degree. And it’s these kind of events that not only energise me but also help me find EA friends with whom I can hang out, co-work or even live. Which, by the way, makes such events more valuable when they are for people from one city.

Also, I know from first-hand experience that online information is not enough for cause prioritisation, making career decisions or deciding where to donate. I read a lot but when I started going to EA meetups some gaps in my knowledge and flaws in my thinking were soon exposed. Discussions hit diminishing returns after a while though.

But maybe both goals can be achieved with simple socials at a lesser cost.

Comment author: Dunja 07 April 2018 03:38:37PM *  5 points [-]

OK, I have to admit these are really good points :) I don't work in any direct way in the EA sector, but I can imagine that just like with any job, communication with others can kick-start new enthusiasm and even new projects.

Comment author: Dunja 06 April 2018 11:44:53AM *  2 points [-]

Thanks for this, great info and presentation and a very well planned event! That said, I'm in general rather skeptical of the impact such events have on anything but the fun of the participants :) I don't have any empirical data to back this claim (so I might as well be completely wrong), but I have an impression that while such events help like-minded people to get to know each other, in terms of an actual, long-term impact on the goals of EA they don't do much. And here is why: those who're enthusiastic about EA and/or willing to contribute in a certain way will do so anyway. For them online information, or a single talk may even be enough. And the other way around: those who aren't much into it will rarely become so via such an event.

I am aware that this may be quite an unpopular view, but I think it would be great to have some empirical evidence to show if it's really wrong.

My guess is that events organized for an effective knowledge-building in the given domain (including concrete skills required for a very concrete tasks in the given community, some of which were a part of your event) would be those that would make more of a difference. Say, an EA community realizes they lack the knowledge of gathering empirical data or the knowledge of spreading their ideas and attracting new members. In that case, one could invite experts on these issues to provide concrete intensive crash-courses, equipping the given community so that it can afterwards put these skills to action. This means a hard-working event, without much extra-entertainment activities, but with a high knowledge gain. I think networking and getting to know others is nice, but not as essential as the know-how and the willingness to apply it (which may then spontaneously result in a well networked community).

(Edit: I once again checked the primary goal of your event and indeed, if you want to provide a space for people to get to know one another, this kind of retreat certainly makes a lot of sense. So maybe my worries were misplaced given this goal, since I rather had in mind the goal of expanding the EA community and attracting new members).

Comment author: Gregory_Lewis 19 December 2017 12:38:18AM 3 points [-]

[Note: I work on existential risk reduction]

Although I laud posts like the OP, I'm not sure I understand this approach to uncertainty.

I think a lot turns on what you mean by the AI cause area being "Plausibly better" than global poverty or animal welfare on EV. The Gretchenfrage seems to be this conditional forecast: "If I spent (lets say) 6 months looking at the AI cause area, would I expect to identify better uses of marginal funding in this cause area than those I find in animal welfare and global poverty?"

If the answer is "plausibly so, but probably not" (either due to a lower 'prima facie' central estimate, or after pricing in regression to the mean etc.), then I understand the work uncertainty is doing here (modulo the usual points about VoI): one can't carefully look at everything, and one has to make some judgments on what cause areas look most promising to investigate on current margins.

Yet if the answer is "Probably, yes", then offering these recommendations simpliciter (i.e. "EA should fully fund this") seems premature to me. The evaluation is valuable, but should be presented with caveats like, "Conditional on thinking global poverty is the best cause area, fund X; conditional on thinking animal welfare is the best cause area, fund Y (but, FWIW, I believe AI is the best cause area, but I don't know what to fund within it)." It would also lean against making ones own donations to X, Y etc., rather than spending time thinking about it/following the recommendations of someone one trusts to make good picks in the AI cause area.

Comment author: Dunja 31 March 2018 06:45:14PM *  0 points [-]

An additional point to take into account when it comes to examining the research on AI as possible space for donations: as a scientific domain the topic of AI risks and safety can easily fall under the public/academic funding, even under the assumption that it is currently underfunded. To this end, individual applicants (precisely those who would be conducting research by means of donations) can apply for individual PhD and postdoc grants. There are numerous opportunities of that kind across EU. Moreover, the funding agencies (e.g. in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, etc.) will employ expert refereeing system (sometimes even asking the applicant to suggest suitable referees) to assess the project and its effectiveness (which I find very relevant from the perspective of EA). If we take this into account, then a number of other organizations that can't be so easily funded via already existing institutional channels becomes much more urgent.

P.S. Great post, Peter, only now saw it.

Comment author: Jan_Kulveit 28 March 2018 10:14:20PM 2 points [-]

To me the basic variance seems to be in the level of centralization (hierarchy with a centre vs. loose cluster), hierarchicality, type of connections between organizations (formal vs. informal).

Possibly closer example than academia or corporations may be "environmental movement" ... where you have research, action, and policy components, and I would guess there may be things to learn from.

Comment author: Dunja 29 March 2018 03:41:53PM 1 point [-]

Yes, environmental movement is a good comparison. I'm still not sure what exactly can be translated from that movement to EA at this point, mainly because the involved group is much smaller... but would be definitely interesting to hear your ideas on this.

Comment author: Jan_Kulveit 28 March 2018 09:15:10PM 2 points [-]

Good point, I think the "effective altruism as an academic field" metaphor is useful - but possibly having too much influence.

Effective altruism should be not only about finding answers to the central question but also about acting on them, at some point. The action part is IMO what makes it different from academia, may be brings it closer to "technology" than "science" and may benefit from a different structure or tighter coordination. Or maybe not, that's part of the question.

Comment author: Dunja 28 March 2018 09:50:51PM *  0 points [-]

Right, I agree, EA has both the research component (establishing what "effective" is supposed to mean) and then the practical component (application of effective policies). So maybe you primarily target the latter when you suggest the structure isn't optimal? Would be interesting to hear which suggestions you'd have in mind even as a brainstorming :)

Comment author: Dunja 28 March 2018 05:25:50PM *  5 points [-]

I think that EA as a movement is much less similar to multinational corporations than, say, to an academic field. In contrast to a corporation with a clear set of goals and a hierarchical decision-making procedures for how to achieve them, EA is neither likely to settle on the ultimate preference order on goals, nor on the optimal ways to achieve them. This is largely due to the fact that how to effectively help others is an empirical question, for which we don't have clear answers, and which is so complex that it may easily lead to peer disagreements (where different "schools of thought" become convinced of different methodologies, etc.). So I'd say, just like with academic research, what matters here is encouraging discussion and critical exchange within EA community, where EA-related institutions can strive to provide space for such interaction.

Comment author: DominikPeters 23 March 2018 01:47:17PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Dunja 23 March 2018 04:36:02PM 0 points [-]

Cool, thanks!

Comment author: Dunja 02 March 2018 10:14:05PM 6 points [-]

This all sounds really great, glad to hear you actually have a whole project on this! :)

Do you plan to use the empirical info you've gathered as guidelines for funding, or what is your idea of how your results could be employed for charity issues?

I'm also curious which factors you plan to investigate when it comes to the EA movement building?

View more: Next