115

I started drafting this about two years ago and gave a lightning talk on the idea at a community builders retreat. I tabled it, but I'm sharing it as a short post during Draft Amnesty Week.

Sometimes, I intentionally go to events where I know no one, just for the experience of being in a room full of strangers.

I spend so much time in self-made bubbles: bubbles of like-minded people, bubbles of colleagues, bubbles of family, bubbles of long-established friendship. I meet new people all the time. But I meet them because they have chosen to bravely enter my bubble. And that can make it very hard to remember what it's like to enter a room where you know no one.

I'm not shy and I don't experience social anxiety, but that becomes irrelevant when I don't know what awaits me on the other side of a door.

How many people will be there? Will I be the only one who knows no one? Will anyone want to talk to me? Will there be norms I don't know and breach? Will I have anything to say? Will I learn anything? Is any of this actually worth it?

I remember thinking this before I attended my first EA NYC event. And my first EAG. And basically every new event ever. And now, I force myself to find new spaces where I'll feel this way again, because otherwise I start to forget what it feels like.

I want to create a world where people feel empowered to do good and have access to spaces and connections that support them in that effort. That’s why I think a lot about how we welcome new people into EA and the causes within it. Not just in the formal sense of onboarding them with fellowships, 1-1 chats, or intro presentations, but in the more visceral, emotional sense of what it feels like to step into a room where you don’t know if you belong, or if you really can contribute.

It’s easy to forget how much courage it takes to walk into an unfamiliar space, especially when you’re no longer the newcomer. This is particularly true in tight-knit communities, where people already have shared references, common acquaintances, and an unspoken rhythm to their conversations. From the inside, these communities can feel warm and inviting. From the outside, they can feel impermeable.

For those of us who have been in EA for a while, I think it’s worth occasionally putting ourselves in that position—stepping into a room where we know no one. It’s a way to remind ourselves what it feels like to be new, to be an outsider looking in. And it’s a way to stay open to serendipity and perspectives we wouldn’t otherwise encounter.

Because ultimately, the rooms full of strangers are where movements grow. They’re where ideas spread beyond their starting circles and improve through new perspectives, where people take their first steps toward involvement, and where potential collaborators decide whether to step up, or step away.

So when was the last time you walked into a room full of strangers? And what might happen if you did it again?

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I've grown accustomed to not bringing up EA and AI safety in my regular non-EA circles. It is too much of a headache trying to explain to people and although some are curious, I don't enjoy being pushy and opinionated.

In EA circles, I get a lot of validation and a sense of connection. My novel ideas and culture are shared so tightly with other EAs. I almost feel as if there is a recoil effect where I am now too lazy to explore EA tenets with non-EAs. I don't care for trying to build EA in others to give myself someone to talk to. (I am incredibly grateful for the EA community and I think that the recoil is minor compared to the benefit)

I generally find it extremely easy to be a normal dude day to day but mixing my EA world with my normal world is difficult. I don't talk about EA with my family or my buddies. I don't try to convince anyone outside of EA of anything and I probably should! I know AGI lab people who I could probably sway towards quitting their jobs or something haha.

Thank you for sharing! I liked this post :)) Recently I went to a social space I'd not been to before (which hasn't happened for a while) and I was surprised how anxious I felt at first. I was also surprised how lovely people were very quickly, and I think it's reminded me that new spaces full of strangers can actually be great places, albeit they don't stay 'strangers' for very long. 

"but in the more visceral, emotional sense of what it feels like to step into a room where you don’t know if you belong, or if you really can contribute."

Your writing feels like poetry. For this line, I think of... wanting to push for more culture where EA events & connections are more on the friendship/sports team side <---than--> networking/work, which will subsists on its own without any help due to the nature of the org. 

Curated and popular this week
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
For immediate release: April 1, 2025 OXFORD, UK — The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) announced today that it will no longer identify as an "Effective Altruism" organization.  "After careful consideration, we've determined that the most effective way to have a positive impact is to deny any association with Effective Altruism," said a CEA spokesperson. "Our mission remains unchanged: to use reason and evidence to do the most good. Which coincidentally was the definition of EA." The announcement mirrors a pattern of other organizations that have grown with EA support and frameworks and eventually distanced themselves from EA. CEA's statement clarified that it will continue to use the same methodologies, maintain the same team, and pursue identical goals. "We've found that not being associated with the movement we have spent years building gives us more flexibility to do exactly what we were already doing, just with better PR," the spokesperson explained. "It's like keeping all the benefits of a community while refusing to contribute to its future development or taking responsibility for its challenges. Win-win!" In a related announcement, CEA revealed plans to rename its annual EA Global conference to "Coincidental Gathering of Like-Minded Individuals Who Mysteriously All Know Each Other But Definitely Aren't Part of Any Specific Movement Conference 2025." When asked about concerns that this trend might be pulling up the ladder for future projects that also might benefit from the infrastructure of the effective altruist community, the spokesperson adjusted their "I Heart Consequentialism" tie and replied, "Future projects? I'm sorry, but focusing on long-term movement building would be very EA of us, and as we've clearly established, we're not that anymore." Industry analysts predict that by 2026, the only entities still identifying as "EA" will be three post-rationalist bloggers, a Discord server full of undergraduate philosophy majors, and one person at
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Epistemic status: highly certain, or something The Spending What We Must 💸11% pledge  In short: Members pledge to spend at least 11% of their income on effectively increasing their own productivity. This pledge is likely higher-impact for most people than the Giving What We Can 🔸10% Pledge, and we also think the name accurately reflects the non-supererogatory moral beliefs of many in the EA community. Example Charlie is a software engineer for the Centre for Effective Future Research. Since Charlie has taken the SWWM 💸11% pledge, rather than splurge on a vacation, they decide to buy an expensive noise-canceling headset before their next EAG, allowing them to get slightly more sleep and have 104 one-on-one meetings instead of just 101. In one of the extra three meetings, they chat with Diana, who is starting an AI-for-worrying-about-AI company, and decide to become a cofounder. The company becomes wildly successful, and Charlie's equity share allows them to further increase their productivity to the point of diminishing marginal returns, then donate $50 billion to SWWM. The 💸💸💸 Badge If you've taken the SWWM 💸11% Pledge, we'd appreciate if you could add three 💸💸💸 "stacks of money with wings" emoji to your social media profiles. We chose three emoji because we think the 💸11% Pledge will be about 3x more effective than the 🔸10% pledge (see FAQ), and EAs should be scope sensitive.  FAQ Is the pledge legally binding? We highly recommend signing the legal contract, as it will allow you to sue yourself in case of delinquency. What do you mean by effectively increasing productivity? Some interventions are especially good at transforming self-donations into productivity, and have a strong evidence base. In particular:  * Offloading non-work duties like dates and calling your mother to personal assistants * Running many emulated copies of oneself (likely available soon) * Amphetamines I'm an AI system. Can I take the 💸11% pledge? We encourage A
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
46
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read