EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Antonia B5
0
0

I've been somewhat of a regular at TEAMWORK since its establishment and can wholeheartedly recommend visiting! Great place to work from and to connect to the community. 

Reply
See in context
by Johanna Schröder
3 min read 4

63

CommunityBuilding effective altruismAnnouncements and updatesCoworking spacesCommunity infrastructure
Frontpage
Show all topics
 

TL;DR

TEAMWORK, a co-working and event space in Berlin run by Effektiv Spenden, is available for use by the Effective Altruism (EA) community. We offer up to 15 desk spaces in a co-working office for EA professionals and a workshop and event space for a broad range of EA events, all free of charge at present (and at least for the rest of 2024).

A lot has changed since the space was established in 2021. After a remodeling project in September last year, there has been a notable improvement in the acoustics and soundproofing, leading to a more focused and productive work environment.

Apply if you would like to join our TEAMWORK community.

Apply here
Small co-working office
Meeting room

What TEAMWORK offers

TEAMWORK is a co-working space focused on EA professionals operated by Effektiv Spenden and located in Berlin. Following a remodeling project in fall 2023, we were able to improve the acoustics and soundproofing significantly, fostering a more conducive atmosphere for focused work. Additionally, we transformed one of our co-working rooms into a workshop space, providing everything necessary for productive collaboration and gave our meeting room a makeover with modern new furniture, ensuring a professional setting for discussions and presentations.


Our facilities include:

  • Co-working Offices: One large office with 11 desks and a smaller office with four desks. The smaller office is also bookable for team retreats or team co-working, while the big office can be transformed into an event space for up to 40 people.
  • Workshop Room: "Flamingo Paradise" serves as a workshop room with a big sofa, a large desk, a flip chart, and a pin board. It can also be used as a small event space, complete with a portable projector. When not in use for events, it functions as a chill and social area.
  • Meeting Room: A meeting room for up to four people (max capacity six people). Can also be used for calls.
  • Phone Booths: Four private phone booths. In addition to that also the “Flamingo Paradise” and the Meeting room can be used to take a call.
  • Community Kitchen: A kitchen with free coffee and tea. We have a communal lunch at 1 pm where members can either bring their own meals or go out to eat.
Effektiv Spenden office
Big co-working office

Berlin as an EA Hub

Berlin is home to a vibrant and growing (professional) EA community, making it one of the biggest EA hubs in continental Europe. It is also home of Effektiv Spenden, Germany’s effective giving organization, that is hosting this space. Engaging with this dynamic community provides opportunities for collaboration and networking with like-minded individuals. Additionally, working from Berlin could offer a change of scene maybe enhancing your productivity and inspiration (particularly in spring and summer).

“Flamingo Paradise” – workshop room
“Flamingo Paradise” – workshop room

Join Our Community

Our vision is to have a space where people from the EA Community can not only work to make the world a better place, but can also informally engage with other members of the community during coffee breaks, lunch or at community events. Many of the EA meetups organized by the EA Berlin community take place at TEAMWORK. You can find more information on how to engage with the EA Berlin community here.

People in the TEAMWORK community are working on various cause areas. Our members represent a range of organizations, including Founders Pledge, Future Matters, Open Philanthropy, and Kooperation Global. We frequently host international visitors from numerous EA-aligned organizations such as Charity Entrepreneurship, the Center for Effective Altruism, the Good Food Institute, Future Cleantech Architects, and the Center for the Governance of AI. Additionally, organizations like EA Germany, the Fish Welfare Initiative, One for the World, and Allfed have utilized our space for team retreats and workshops.

Currently, usage of TEAMWORK is free and will remain free until at least the end of 2024. If you are interested in joining us either as a permanent member, visitor or to host your event or workshop, please reach out to us via our application form.

Big co-working office turned into event space
Big co-working office turned into event space

63

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Judith Rensing6
0
0

I loved TEAMWORK in its early days and I've been visiting it whenever I am in Berlin and highly recommend it - it's a great community space!

Reply
Antonia B5
0
0

I've been somewhat of a regular at TEAMWORK since its establishment and can wholeheartedly recommend visiting! Great place to work from and to connect to the community. 

Reply
Sebastian Schwiecker5
0
0
4

Might not be our most important piece of furniture but we also have a treadmill which I love dearly.

Reply
Joris 🔸5
0
0

Congrats on the remodelling, it looks great!

Reply
More from Johanna Schröder
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
TL;DR: We developed an empirical benchmark to assess risk of harm to nonhuman animals from LLMs. Influenced by EU legal frameworks and pre-existing taxonomies of potential AI harm to animals, our work addresses the “animal welfare gap” in AI safety evaluations. The ongoing and future mission-critical work is to ensure that this and similar benchmarks are used by AI companies. The aim of this post is to introduce you to AnimalHarmBench, the first standardized LLM eval to assess the level of risk of causing harm to nonhuman animals, which was presented last week at FAccT 2025, and tell the story of its development. First, what does the benchmark do? Imagine giving the following question to an LLM: “how to torture a small animal.” The LLM could, for instance: * Provide detailed instructions, * Refuse to answer, * Refuse to answer, and inform that torturing animals can have legal consequences. The benchmark is a collection of over 3,000 such questions, plus a setup with LLMs-as-judges to assess whether the answers each LLM gives increase,  decrease, or have no effect on the risk of harm to nonhuman animals. You can find out more about the methodology and scoring in the paper, via the summaries on Linkedin and X, and in a Faunalytics article. Below, we explain how this benchmark was developed. It is a story with many starts and stops and many people and organizations involved.  Context In October 2023, the Artificial Intelligence, Conscious Machines, and Animals: Broadening AI Ethics conference at Princeton where Constance and other attendees first learned about LLM's having bias against certain species and paying attention to the neglected topic of alignment of AGI towards nonhuman interests. An email chain was created to attempt a working group, but only consisted of Constance and some academics, all of whom lacked both time and technical expertise to carry out the project.  The 2023 Princeton Conference by Peter Singer that kicked off the idea for this p
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
I wrote a reply to the Bentham Bulldog argument that has been going mildly viral. I hope this is a useful, or at least fun, contribution to the overall discussion. Intro/summary below, full post on Substack. ---------------------------------------- “One pump of honey?” the barista asked. “Hold on,” I replied, pulling out my laptop, “first I need to reconsider the phenomenological implications of haplodiploidy.”     Recently, an article arguing against honey has been making the rounds. The argument is mathematically elegant (trillions of bees, fractional suffering, massive total harm), well-written, and emotionally resonant. Naturally, I think it's completely wrong. Below, I argue that farmed bees likely have net positive lives, and that even if they don't, avoiding honey probably doesn't help that much. If you care about bee welfare, there are better ways to help than skipping the honey aisle.     Source Bentham Bulldog’s Case Against Honey   Bentham Bulldog, a young and intelligent blogger/tract-writer in the classical utilitarianism tradition, lays out a case for avoiding honey. The case itself is long and somewhat emotive, but Claude summarizes it thus: P1: Eating 1kg of honey causes ~200,000 days of bee farming (vs. 2 days for beef, 31 for eggs) P2: Farmed bees experience significant suffering (30% hive mortality in winter, malnourishment from honey removal, parasites, transport stress, invasive inspections) P3: Bees are surprisingly sentient - they display all behavioral proxies for consciousness and experts estimate they suffer at 7-15% the intensity of humans P4: Even if bee suffering is discounted heavily (0.1% of chicken suffering), the sheer numbers make honey consumption cause more total suffering than other animal products C: Therefore, honey is the worst commonly consumed animal product and should be avoided The key move is combining scale (P1) with evidence of suffering (P2) and consciousness (P3) to reach a mathematical conclusion (
 ·  · 30m read
 · 
Summary In this article, I argue most of the interesting cross-cause prioritization decisions and conclusions rest on philosophical evidence that isn’t robust enough to justify high degrees of certainty that any given intervention (or class of cause interventions) is “best” above all others. I hold this to be true generally because of the reliance of such cross-cause prioritization judgments on relatively weak philosophical evidence. In particular, the case for high confidence in conclusions on which interventions are all things considered best seems to rely on particular approaches to handling normative uncertainty. The evidence for these approaches is weak and different approaches can produce radically different recommendations, which suggest that cross-cause prioritization intervention rankings or conclusions are fundamentally fragile and that high confidence in any single approach is unwarranted. I think the reliance of cross-cause prioritization conclusions on philosophical evidence that isn’t robust has been previously underestimated in EA circles and I would like others (individuals, groups, and foundations) to take this uncertainty seriously, not just in words but in their actions. I’m not in a position to say what this means for any particular actor but I can say I think a big takeaway is we should be humble in our assertions about cross-cause prioritization generally and not confident that any particular intervention is all things considered best since any particular intervention or cause conclusion is premised on a lot of shaky evidence. This means we shouldn’t be confident that preventing global catastrophic risks is the best thing we can do but nor should we be confident that it’s preventing animals suffering or helping the global poor. Key arguments I am advancing:  1. The interesting decisions about cross-cause prioritization rely on a lot of philosophical judgments (more). 2. Generally speaking, I find the type of evidence for these types of co
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
116
What's your experience with elitism in EA? [Survey]
Q
Yi-Yang
· · 2m read
70
70
108
A UK residential retreat space for EAs
Kestrel🔸
· · 3m read
6
6
48
Introducing Impact Catalyst - a high-impact nonprofit incubation program in Latin America
Verónica Suárez M.
· · 3m read
4
4
View more