Hot take; ultimately this is not a hill I want to die on, and overall I think Bluedot Impact is good for the world. Having interacted with some of the people there, they seem lovely and I don’t want to burn bridges. But I’ve found some of their recent marketing on their website and LinkedIn somewhat aesthetically cringe. It feels like it’s trying very hard to cater to a kind of tech-bro/Silicon Valley speech. Maybe this is working for them, but I can’t help feeling icked by it, and it makes me lose a bit of faith in the project. For eg, in hiring for a new tech lead role they have an accompanying blog post that says: "We're hiring for a Tech Lead. Meet Carol, our ideal candidate." Meet Carol, a senior engineer at a Series B startup that’s losing its way. Multiple years experience, previously built 0-to-1 at a failed startup and has multiple side projects others are using. Could make £200k+ at FAANG but chooses impact over money. “I'm tired of building things nobody cares about. I want to ship things that matter, fast, with people who give a shit.” – Carol, probably * Outcome obsessed, not code precious. Will happily torch 3 months of work if something better emerges. Measures success by user impact, not lines shipped * Post-failure wisdom. Has startup scar tissue. Been sold dreams that evaporated. Now has pattern recognition for what's real vs what's venture theatre * Full-stack ownership. Talks to users, analyses data, mocks designs, writes docs. Allergic to "that's not my job" * Speed fundamentalist - Ships to real users fast. Viscerally hates bureaucracy, long meetings, permission-seeking culture   * What They Want * Real users, real impact. "I want to ship something on Monday and see 1000 people use it by Friday" * Clear line to survival. Not another pre-PMF prayer circle. Evidence of traction, revenue, or at minimum a brutally honest path to it. * Mission that matters. Not another ad-tech optimisation tool or crypto dashboard that makes the wo

Mini EA Forum Update You can now save comments, as well as posts, to your Saved & read page.  If you want to save a comment, just click the three dots on the top right of a comment, select save, and you’ll find the comment at the bottom of your Saved & read page. Thanks to the LessWrong team for adding this to the codebase!

Quick warning: crossposting from here to LessWrong is currently buggy, due to some ongoing infrastructure changes on their side. If you run into any issues saving or publishing your post with "Crosspost to LessWrong" checked, that may be the reason. We're working with LW to resolve any bugs, but they have higher priority issues right now so I'm unsure how long it will take to fix. In the meantime, you can try unchecking that box and manually posting in both places. You can help us diagnose the issue by reporting any bugs you see. 

Executive summary for this week's global risks roundup: 

Community > Epistemics Community is more important to EA than epistemics. What drives EA's greater impact isn’t just reasoning, but collaboration. Twenty “90% smart” people are much more likely identify more impactful interventions than two “100% smart” people. I may be biased by how I found EA—working alone on “finding most impactful work” before stumbling into the EA community—but this is the point: EA isn’t unique for asking, “How can I use reason to find the most impactful interventions?” Others ask that too. EA is unique because it gathers those people, and facilitates funding and coordination, enabling far more careful and comprehensive work.