Disclaimer: I'm friends with Attila, CEEALAR's new director.
I have been to the EA hotel 2 times before Attila took on the director role.
At my last visit, he had been involved for just three months, and I was really blown away by how much he had transformed the place already, in terms of finding quick fixes for inefficiencies and building their back-end digital (and physical!) infrastructure.
Being an experienced professional, his 10+ years of experience in management in the corporate and non-profit world is exactly what CEEALAR and the broader EA community need.
I know the rest of the managers reasonably well, too, and I'm really impressed by their level of competency, understanding of the EA landscape and of fieldbuilding strategy.
One thing that might be worrisome to individual donors and institutional players is the perceived risks that come with the EA hotel. "Mixing" a coworking and living space can lead to tricky interpersonal dynamics.[1] As far as I know, there has never been a serious issue around this; however, I would also feel really confident in the current team's ability to handle even very tricky or serious situations.
Altough it's worth pointing out that these spaces are quite well seperated. For all intents and purposes, they might as well be in different buildings.
CEEALAR is incredible and absolutely worth funding. It's one of the best places in the world for the work it does. You need a new roof, you need runway, and the EA community should step up to provide both.
Should our EA residential program prioritize structured programming or open-ended residencies?
I think prioritizing structured programming would undermine your core value proposition.
We already have plenty of AI safety fellowships and workshops in the EA ecosystem. What's actually missing is a place where people can work without constantly performing for funders.
I understand the pressure to add structured programming to appeal to funders. But CEEALAR should be transparent about what it actually is: the only place in EA that gives space to people who don't fit the traditional mold. People like:
The researcher whose idea will only show results after months of work.
The career transitioner who can't afford a three-month unpaid fellowship.
The person who just needs community and time to figure things out.
CEEALAR trusts them. That's valuable. That's worth funding. The priority should be doing it cost-effectively, not redesigning CEEALAR to look like everything else.
Some residents will slack off in an open-ended model. CEEALAR's evaluation process is already pretty good at handling this, and it doesn't need to be right about every single person to create enormous value. Most people given genuine trust and support will do meaningful work.
CEEALAR should optimize for capacity and minimizing cost per resident. The law of large numbers works in your favor, and it works better when the numbers are actually large. There are plenty of talented people who just need space. It doesn't need to be luxurious. It just needs to be a functional community, which it is. Take more shots on more people and you're more likely to find the outliers.
It's okay for CEEALAR to be weird. That's the whole point.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment and recommendation!
To give some clarity and perhaps put your mind at ease: we don't intend to redesign it in a way that makes us copycats. We intend to find, optimize, and refine programs that would benefit from a residential space, while also enhancing our residents' experiences, and provide them with the necessary structure (when and for whom it is useful), support (academic, professional, emotional, cognitive), and resources (tools, compute, referrals, career development, etc) so that they can thrive. The goal is not to become yet another incubator or one-off program, but to leverage the best parts of various other institutions and create the right blend of the above-mentioned things. Simply giving space is indeed beneficial. But we can do better.
Indeed, we want to expand the number of people we can host, but that requires more common space to avoid overcrowding. We're working on that. And while the place doesn't need to be luxurious, the baseline needs to be raised so that more people accustomed to higher standards are willing to come and experience what the community has to offer without feeling they're sacrificing their quality of life. It has to be more than just a functional community; if that were all we were, it would narrow the kind of people who would come.
We are becoming an institution where people from all walks of life come to work on the world's biggest problems. In the community, with each other, in a pleasant and productive environment, where they can become the best version of themselves, and have the greatest impact on the world. That requires more than a well-intentioned community.
Are there any success stories you can point to where CEEALAR was instrumental in getting a charity going, or some other project or important accomplishment?
Hi Yarrow. Only just seeing your comment, but in case it's still useful, you can find examples of the kind of work we've supported on the Impact section of our website: https://www.ceealar.org/impact.
The organisation for which we've plausibly had the highest counterfactual impact is ML4Good - the organisers of the ML4Good UK project met at CEEALAR, which was executed with CEEALAR's support. This then led to one of the organisers later co-founding ML4Good as an organisation, currently operating on an 18 month grant to run 18 bootcamps.
Should our EA residential program prioritize structured programming or open-ended residencies?
You can always host structured programs, perhaps on a regular cycle, but doing so to the exclusion of open-ended residencies seems to be giving up much of the counterfactual value the hotel provided. It seems like a strong overcommitment to a concern about AI doom in the next low-single-digit years, which remains (rightly IMO) a niche belief even in the EA world, despite heavy selection within the community for it.
Having said that, to some degree it sounds like you'll need to follow the funding, and prioritise keeping operations running. If that funding is likely to be conditional on a short-term AI safety focus then you can always shift focus if the world doesn't end in 2027 - though I would strive to avoid being long-term locked into that particular view.
[ETA] I'm not sure the poll is going to give you that meaningful results. I'm at approx the opposite end of it from @Chris Leong, but his answer sounds largely consistent with mine, primarily with a different emotional focus.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Arepo. A few clarifications:
We're definitely not abandoning open-ended residencies. We're trying to find the right balance between open residency and structured programming. That's exactly why we're polling: we don't have the answer yet and want community input as one data point among many.
On AI safety focus: I think there's a misread here. We're not narrowing to short-timelines AI doom. Our scope is AI safety, reducing global catastrophic risks, and remaining roughly cause-neutral but EA-aligned. We're following where both talent and high-impact opportunities are concentrated, not locking ourselves into a single timeline view.
You're right that we need to align with funding realities to keep operations running, but we're actively working to avoid being locked into any single cause area. The goal is to remain responsive to what the ecosystem needs as things evolve. That is why we're doing very rudimentary market research that directly reaches the end user above, using the poll.
I guess the crux here is how self directed a given individual is? If they are already working/volunteering full time then they probably would benefit much less from such a program. Individuals seeking to transition can benefit from this structure, especially if they are on the younger side. For better or worse, a self-contained program also makes a stronger case for funders, as they will have a more concrete grasp of what they are buying.
Our open-ended residency is most useful for people who are already doing solid work and can level up in our environment. The value is to do your best work, and live your best life with fewer constraints, better feedback loops, and a community of peers pushing similar frontiers. Structure could be beneficial for people in transition: career shifters, recent graduates, researchers testing fit for independent work, and impact entrepreneurs. Our programs would give you the peers in your cohort, and the necessary tools and guardrails on your journey.
The funder clarity point is very similar to startup ecosystem VC funding. "We subsidize housing for self-directed people" is vague and hard to evaluate. "We run a 3-6 month fellowship with structured programming, embedded assessment, and outcome tracking" gives funders something concrete to fund and measure. That's exactly why we're building toward the latter; it's better for residents and makes a clearer case for support.
The self-direction spectrum is something we're thinking hard about as we design programming and guide our community. Too much structure and you lose the benefits of extended deep work time. Too little, and some residents drift without making progress. We're aiming to build the supportive structure, the scaffolding (regular check-ins, peer/coach accountability, access to mentorship, etc.) that supports without micromanaging, and each resident can get custom benefits fit for their needs.
I am keenly wary of duplicating efforts when there is no demand. However, I suspect (pending actual market research and confirmation) that there are still uncovered use cases and needs that we could — and should — fill. Duplication is not the goal. Finding a niche that is underserved and provides value is.
MATS has a very high bar these days, I'm pretty happy about there being "knock-off MATS" programs that allow people who missed the bar for MATS to demonstrate they can do valuable work.
I completely agree. I think more programs like MATS, ARENA, etc. are great! I'm happy to provide resources and accreditation if someone wants to launch e.g. MATSxBlackpool.
Thanks for being open to this, Ryan! We would be delighted to work with MATS on making this happen; it is precisely the sort of partnership and programming we're hoping to cultivate in the coming year. I'll reach out next week.
That said, I'd be wary duplicating existing programs; ie. the AI Safety Fellowship becoming a knock-off MATS.
This theme comes up a lot in AI Safety, and I really don't think the reasoning is sound behind it. (See my post on a related topic).
Imagine you could snap your finger and create another organisation like MATS. Wouldn't you want that, conditional on the org doing things just as well (or eventually becoming one that does things just as well)?
MATS is well-funded (having received a grant of over $30M recently, I believe), so it's not as if they can magically absorb the money that could go to startup fieldbuilding projects. (Not to mention that smaller projects tend to be more cost-effective as long as they are good).
Imagine we lived in a world where 80k is still the only organisation doing career support.
Now we have HIP, Successif, Probably Good etc. These orgs are a blessing for the field, and if we could have twice as many of them, that would be great.
HIP and Successif focuse more on mid-career professionals.
Probably Good focusing on a broader set of cause areas; and taking some of the old responsibilities of 80k when it started focusing on more on transformative AI.
Yes, but there is still overlap in their work! It makes sense for orgs to find their nieche, but my stronger claim is that even if they didn't, it would still be good to have double the amount of fieldbuilding orgs, assuming they are doing good work.[1]
This is dependent on funding availability, though - the background assumption here is that funders (OP) can't give away money fast enough for some kind of fieldbuilding work (such as MATS)
If MATS was struggling for money, I would rather have them get the marginal dollar than another org that is doing something very similar but at an earlier stage. (but you could argue against this. One might want to invest into something speculative if they think it has the potential to outperform MATS on the long run)
As someone who very much worries about EA losing foothold in America due to the political situation, I'm hopeful we can keep up investment in our UK infrastructure (as well as continue expansion to other countries).
This is the third in a sequence of posts taken from my recent report: Why Did Environmentalism Become Partisan?
Summary
Rising partisanship did not make environmentalism more popular or politically effective. Instead, it saw flat or falling overall public opinion, fewer major legislative achievements, and fluctuating executive actions.
Public Opinion...
I think right now EAs might be making a significant mistake by paying insufficient attention to the political realm. As EAs we tend to figure out what’s most impactful for us to work on and focus hard. That’s great! But there are various actions that are ‘non-delegatable’ - the extent to which an individual can do the action is limited (like voting, going to a protest, making hard money contributions to particular campaigns). It might be useful if we were all more in the habit of doing variou...
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...
Minimum critical need: £30k for essential roof repairs to prevent building damage.
Full 2026 budget: £270k ($355k) to run operations, launch structured programs, and expand capacity
What we do: Cost-effective residential incubator supporting ~20 EA researchers and entrepreneurs at a time, at half the cost of major cities. We're the only year-round space in EA where people can live, work, and be in community. We also host retreats and events for EA organizations.
Recent wins: Thus far, 66 grantees in 2025 (+36% YoY), 106% productivity increase vs. the counterfactual, 89% say CEEALAR is more impactful than EAG.
2026 plans: Launch 3-month AI safety fellowship, host 2 hackathons, sign 5+ partner MOUs, build KPI infrastructure for impact measurement, extend runway and diversify funding, and complete infrastructure improvements.
Background: Why CEEALAR Exists and What it Does
The Gap in EA's Talent Pipeline
CEEALAR was founded in 2018 to address a gap in the EA talent and project pipeline. We believe there are many more altruistically minded, talented, and motivated individuals than are given the chance to develop and test their ideas. Funders sensibly optimize for legibility and track record, but this approach overlooks a significant number of high-potential people:
Entrepreneurs building something early-stage that institutional funders are too risk-averse to support
Career transitioners with raw talent but insufficient EA credentials
Researchers with unconventional or pre-paradigmatic ideas that don't fit neatly into existing categories
Many of these people don't get rejected because they lack potential or good ideas – they get filtered out because they lack legibility. Many of them probably don’t even get to the point of seeking funding, as they expect they would be unsuccessful given their credentials or track record. As a result, the EA ecosystem misses out on talent and projects that could do a lot of good.
CEEALAR’s Model
CEEALAR exists to make speculative bets on these individuals. We provide space, community, support, and networking in Blackpool at roughly half the cost of London or SF. But factor in the embedded support (mentorship, peer learning, networking events, and operational infrastructure that would cost £20-30k+ to access separately), and residents are getting a serious value package at hostel prices. By removing financial constraints, residents gain the freedom to pursue their work–whether transitioning into EA careers, conducting research, or launching new organizations.
One reason this model works is the embedded, day-to-day evaluation it enables. By living and working alongside residents, we get an unusually comprehensive view of their potential — not just their outputs, but how they think, collaborate, and respond to setbacks over time. Paired with short initial stays and clear evidence requirements for extensions, this gives us a way to make high-risk, high-reward bets more cost-effectively than would be feasible for most of the wider EA ecosystem.
“I want to thank the entire CEEALAR team from the bottom of my heart. Without you, I might still be editing videos for toxic online business courses right now. Instead, I’m hosting the largest French-language podcast on AI safety. It’s crazy.” – CEEALAR alumnus
EA's Only Year-Round Community Infrastructure
To our knowledge, CEEALAR is the only place in the EA ecosystem where people can show up year-round and be in community with others doing impactful work, day and night.
We believe this is very important. Conferences happen a few times per year; retreats last a weekend or week; coworking spaces close in the evenings. But meaningful collaborations, career transitions, and genuine community formation need time and continuity. We provide what cannot be replicated remotely:
Living and working alongside others wrestling with similar questions
Embedded evaluation where staff see and support your work patterns, collaboration style, and character development daily
Serendipitous collisions that lead to unexpected collaborations and insights
Holistic support: not your outputs, but your wellbeing, relationships, and emotional and psychological growth
A supportive community of value-aligned peers who can cheer you on when you succeed and pick you up when you stumble
A safe space for experimentation where you can try ideas, fail, and pivot without losing your livelihood
“[Staying at CEEALAR was] utterly transformative in my impact journey - I can’t conceive of my path having gone better or close to this well had I done something else with my time.” – CEEALAR alumnus
Our Plans for 2026
Since the summer, we’ve been under new leadership. Having spent the last few months strengthening our organisational foundations and making some much-needed infrastructure improvements, we’re ready for a new phase in 2026. We plan to continue our normal residencies while capitalising on our unique advantages to deliver even more value to our grantees and the wider EA community.
Here are our top goals for 2026:
1. Introduce structured programming
AI Safety Fellowship: A 3-month program for 10–15 people with diverse policy, technical, legal, and operations expertise. Includes mentorship, networking, and expert talks, while keeping space for spontaneous collaborations.
Extended Hackathons: Two extended hackathons (1–2 weeks each) tackling real-world problems, co-developed with sponsor organisations, with follow-on incubation for promising teams.
2.Enhance support for residents
Structured mentorship with partner organisations, and regular check-ins with staff.
Referrals to mental health and career development support.
Greater community connections through events and peer-led skill sharing.
Provide well-being support that helps residents sustain high-impact careers long-term (addressing the burnout problem that causes EA attrition).
3. Impact Measurement Infrastructure
This is a major focus for 2026. To demonstrate ROI to funders and improve our own operations, we're building:
Comprehensive KPI dashboard tracking resident outcomes, career transitions, and project launches
Alumni tracking system with 6/12/24-month follow-ups on career paths and impact
Theory of Change validation with measurable intermediate outcomes
Cost-per-outcome metrics allow rigorous comparison with alternative interventions
4. Develop partnerships with other EA-aligned organisations
Instead of duplicating efforts and creating redundancy in the ecosystem, we intend to cultivate relationships with partner organisations. We're actively seeking 5-7 strategic partnerships with EA organisations to deepen our impact and expand the services we can offer our residents. If you're reading this and thinking "we could collaborate," please reach out!
Partnership models include:
Programs
Host your cohort (Bring their fellowship, intensive, or retreat to CEEALAR. We provide subsidized accommodation, community infrastructure, operational assistance, and meals while they focus on content delivery)
Co-deliver programming (They provide curriculum and mentorship; we provide space, community, and operational support. Co-host hackathons, workshops, or intensive programs)
Curriculum sharing (Integrate their training materials into our fellowship programs)
Talent Pipelines
Resident referrals (We can host participants from their programs who need focused time for projects or transitions)
Alumni pipeline (First access to our pre-vetted resident talent pool for hiring, grantmaking, or program placement, leveraging our embedded evaluation model.)
Mentorship
Mentorship exchange (experts provide guidance to our residents in technical AI safety, policy, operations, or other domains)
Resource sharing (give residents access to their tools, databases, or professional networks)
5. Financial resilience and diversification
By December 2026, we would like to achieve operational stability through:
Extending our runway from the current ~4 months to 18+ months
Increasing non-institutional funding from 16% to 30% of the budget (via hackathon sponsorships, alumni, and patron donations)
Securing a multi-year commitment from at least one major funder
What Does the Community Want? Help Us Decide
As we plan our 2026 programming, we're genuinely uncertain about the optimal balance between structured and open-ended programs. With limited resources, we need to decide where to invest marginal capacity. We'd love your input.
The trade-off:
Structured fellowships: Defined curriculum, clear milestones, cohort cohesion
Open residencies: Self-directed projects, serendipity, emergent collaborations
Which produces better long-term outcomes? Which would you apply for? Where should we focus?
Our Current Funding Gap and Our Ask for Marginal Funding Week
We’re currently facing a funding gap of £330,000 ($430,000)for 2026 (i.e., we’re missing ~90% of our projected budget). As of this month, we have about ~4 months of runway remaining.
Our Minimum Critical Ask: £30,000 ($39,000) for roof repairs
Unfortunately, the (original!) roof of our 19th century building is at risk of collapse. For the health and safety of our residents and staff, and to prevent further building damage, this is an urgent issue we must address soon. Using our current funds would significantly shorten our already very limited runway, increasing the risk of operational closure before (and if!) we are able to raise more funds to continue our operations into 2026.
Disclaimer: I'm friends with Attila, CEEALAR's new director.
I have been to the EA hotel 2 times before Attila took on the director role.
At my last visit, he had been involved for just three months, and I was really blown away by how much he had transformed the place already, in terms of finding quick fixes for inefficiencies and building their back-end digital (and physical!) infrastructure.
Being an experienced professional, his 10+ years of experience in management in the corporate and non-profit world is exactly what CEEALAR and the broader EA community need.
I know the rest of the managers reasonably well, too, and I'm really impressed by their level of competency, understanding of the EA landscape and of fieldbuilding strategy.
One thing that might be worrisome to individual donors and institutional players is the perceived risks that come with the EA hotel. "Mixing" a coworking and living space can lead to tricky interpersonal dynamics.[1] As far as I know, there has never been a serious issue around this; however, I would also feel really confident in the current team's ability to handle even very tricky or serious situations.
Altough it's worth pointing out that these spaces are quite well seperated. For all intents and purposes, they might as well be in different buildings.