Hide table of contents

On April 1, Reddit released r/Place, a collaborative art project consisting of a large empty canvas where each Reddit user could place a single colored pixel every five minutes. After several false starts, a group of 160 EAs collaborated to make the following image:

In this post-mortem, we’d like to go over our method, what we should have done differently, and show off some interesting looking timelapses of both our failed and ultimately successful efforts.

False Starts

Several of us did not initially appreciate just how difficult it would be to create and maintain an image on r/Place. Harrison Durland and Caleb Biddulph started off with high ambitions, suggesting that we might be able to take up a moderately large space, but these initial efforts were aborted early on. The first real attempt was by Jelle Donders and Gruffydd Gozali, who were able to organize a number of redditors in the r/EffectiveAltruism subreddit and create a temporary discord server to help direct users on where to place pixels.

Before long, it became clear that the only way to keep an image up was to do outreach to neighboring groups. Via this method, we attempted negotiations for space several times, sometimes successfully with multiple neighbors — but without agreements with all neighbors, we found ourselves failing twice more. You can see a timelapse of these false starts (and our eventual place) below.

A Secured Spot

When we finally found our final place on r/Place, it was in the newly blank area at the bottom of the canvas. It was through a renewed sense of camaraderie and shared fun that we were able to paint this new area, and it was through successful early negotiations that we were able to keep the area until the end of r/Place.

Our strongest alliance was with the neighboring My Little Pony community, which has supported effective altruism charities several times in the past, particularly through Bronies for Good. Thanks to Lorelei in our discord server, we were able to convince them to generously include us as a part of their template, which meant a large number of their users (and a fair number of their bots) would defend not just their artwork, but also the Effective Altruism logo on r/Place.

Was This Effective?

No. But it nevertheless felt worthwhile.

While the return on investment in terms of communications value versus how much effort we put into this collaborative art project is quite low, the sheer amount of fun from socializing with fellow EAs in this endeavor ended up being unexpectedly significant. I do not think we should overlook the benefits that come from increasing the social interconnectedness of the EA community.

If we prevented some EAs from doing more worthwhile work, then perhaps the social value may not have been significant enough to override that. But, from the conversations I had with people in our discord channels, my sense is that people only participated during time that they otherwise would have spent on nothing particularly high value. People seemed to view this as a fun socialization event that they took advantage of in their off hours.

Lessons Learned

  • Early on, we tried to be somewhat conservative in advertising the discord server where we worked on our art project. In part, this was because we didn’t feel that many in the non-reddit EA community would have the time nor drive to work on this. We were surprised to learn that a large number of EAs came to us organically after reading about various people talking about us beyond the subreddit, including from the EA Forum, the EA Facebook community, and the EA Creatives & Communicators slack channel. Given the social event value of a one-time event like this, we actually believe that we should have organized EAs more effectively earlier than we did.
  • It is now clear to us that attempting to secure an area of any worthwhile size on r/Place will require either an unsustainable number of EAs or a significant number of bots. If we were to attempt this again, we would be well advised to either provide our own bots or ally with a community like MLP in order to create and maintain a logo of sufficient size.
  • Unfortunately, much of the fun and team spirit occurred when no bots were used. If we were trying this again, I would recommend that the use of bots should be limited to maintaining a large EA logo and url, while users could be involved with creating and maintaining smaller EA organization logos and phrases elsewhere on the canvas.
  • We would have found an Effective Altruism-branded URL shortening service quite valuable, as many potential urls were just too long for the space provided.

Final Notes & Appreciation

For those interested in learning more about r/Place, I recommend checking out the 2022 r/Place Atlas to see all the communities that participated. You may also want to view r/Place.space, which provided the raw data so that I could put together some of the timelapses in this post with help from gislerro on github and Katherine Hess.

Thanks go to Gruffydd Gozali, Eric Herboso, Benjamin Brown, Jelle Donders, horu, & Lorelei, who all helped considerably in both the EA r/Place Discussion discord server and on the subreddit.

Special thanks goes to the My Little Pony Manechat discord server for including us in their template, to SPNATI for memorializing our alliance with a collectible image in their video game, and to the Jurassic Park community for repeatedly helping us rebuild our logo.

And to any and all EAs that helped place a pixel: thank you as well. It was a lot of fun coordinating with all of you. (c:
 

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This is great - thank you both!  This entire experience got me to sign up here, on the EA Forum (which I barely even knew about before) - and I definitely connected with other EA people far more than ever before.  I really appreciated that aspect of the project.  Thanks again for this write up.  And the youtube videos are awesome!

Although my own opinion is that securing a piece of r/Place isn't a worthwhile use of time, I think that this serves really well as a training exercise.

An opportunity arises, we have not prepared for it and we didn't have a plan of action ready. It requires internal collaboration as well as a certain amount of external communication. There is no clear leader, because the opportunity is not within a particular team/organization/company. Learning how to collaborate and manage a project like this seems like a valuable skill. Much in the same way that militaries run wargames, aspiring programmers join hackathons, I think that there might be some value (in terms of capacity building) in running some type of training program.

Note that I have spent a total of about 2 minutes thinking through this. This is a very rough idea.

I was quite glad to see this went through. I would have probably helped more, but it came at a pretty inconvenient time (EAGx Boston), so I wasn’t able to contribute to the final location (although I added some to the first location).

(Also, it’s not very important but I wouldn’t say my original plans were ambitious; I never even offered a template)

Good to work with you Eric :)

This is absurdly awesome and it's wonderful to read about this comradery! As Ben Brown alludes to, I believe it has a disproportionately large positive effect compared to what many might think from its strict output. So really a good job to you all!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is a linkpost for a paper I wrote recently, “Endogenous Growth and Excess Variety”, along with a summary. Two schools in growth theory Roughly speaking: In Romer’s (1990) growth model, output per person is interpreted as an economy’s level of “technology”, and the economic growth rate—the growth rate of “real GDP” per person—is proportional to the amount of R&D being done. As Jones (1995) pointed out, populations have grown greatly over the last century, and the proportion of people doing research (and the proportion of GDP spent on research) has grown even more quickly, yet the economic growth rate has not risen. Growth theorists have mainly taken two approaches to reconciling [research] population growth with constant economic growth. “Semi-endogenous” growth models (introduced by Jones (1995)) posit that, as the technological frontier advances, further advances get more difficult. Growth in the number of researchers, and ultimately (if research is not automated) population growth, is therefore necessary to sustain economic growth. “Second-wave endogenous” (I’ll write “SWE”) growth models posit instead that technology grows exponentially with a constant or with a growing population. The idea is that process efficiency—the quantity of a given good producible with given labor and/or capital inputs—grows exponentially with constant research effort, as in a first-wave endogenous model; but when population grows, we develop more goods, leaving research effort per good fixed. (We do this, in the model, because each innovator needs a monopoly on his or her invention in order to compensate for the costs of developing it.) Improvements in process efficiency are called “vertical innovations” and increases in good variety are called “horizontal innovations”. Variety is desirable, so the one-off increase in variety produced by an increase to the population size increases real GDP, but it does not increase the growth rate. Likewise exponential population growth raise
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Sometimes working on animal issues feels like an uphill battle, with alternative protein losing its trendy status with VCs, corporate campaigns hitting blocks in enforcement and veganism being stuck at the same percentage it's been for decades. However, despite these things I personally am more optimistic about the animal movement than I have ever been (despite following the movement for 10+ years). What gives? At AIM we think a lot about the ingredients of a good charity (talent, funding and idea) and more and more recently I have been thinking about the ingredients of a good movement or ecosystem that I think has a couple of extra ingredients (culture and infrastructure). I think on approximately four-fifths of these prerequisites the animal movement is at all-time highs. And like betting on a charity before it launches, I am far more confident that a movement that has these ingredients will lead to long-term impact than I am relying on, e.g., plant-based proteins trending for climate reasons. Culture The culture of the animal movement in the past has been up and down. It has always been full of highly dedicated people in a way that is rare across other movements, but it also had infighting, ideological purity and a high level of day-to-day drama. Overall this made me a bit cautious about recommending it as a place to spend time even when someone was sold on ending factory farming. But over the last few years professionalization has happened, differences have been put aside to focus on higher goals and the drama overall has gone down a lot. This was perhaps best embodied by my favorite opening talk at a conference ever (AVA 2025) where Wayne and Lewis, leaders with very different historical approaches to helping animals, were able to share lessons, have a friendly debate and drive home the message of how similar our goals really are. This would have been nearly unthinkable decades ago (and in fact resulted in shouting matches when it was attempted). But the cult