Upvote, but I'm not really sure how to resolve this. As I see it, many organizations in EA are incentivized to overstate their capacity to take on people because many EAs struggle with imposter syndrome. That is, good talent in EA doesn't reach out for opportunities because they don't think they're qualified.
I would gander that most organizations would respond to an email from a "unicorn." That is, someone who is unusually valuable to them. Such "unicorns" also probably have imposter syndrome, so it's in the organizations best interest to understate what their bar is, just to not scare away these people.
The frustrating part is that the same vagueness that helps unicorns reach out is what wastes everyone else's time. There's no clean way to signal "yes to you, no to most people." Either reveal the bar or maintain the ambiguity.
This is frustrating and unfair to early stage professionals in EA, but I can hardly blame any organization that does this. Good luck out there, because you might be the unicorn for some organization :)
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.
We hope to be organizing future hubs in more locations. Keep up with our website and Discord :)
Upvote, but I'm not really sure how to resolve this. As I see it, many organizations in EA are incentivized to overstate their capacity to take on people because many EAs struggle with imposter syndrome. That is, good talent in EA doesn't reach out for opportunities because they don't think they're qualified.
I would gander that most organizations would respond to an email from a "unicorn." That is, someone who is unusually valuable to them. Such "unicorns" also probably have imposter syndrome, so it's in the organizations best interest to understate what their bar is, just to not scare away these people.
The frustrating part is that the same vagueness that helps unicorns reach out is what wastes everyone else's time. There's no clean way to signal "yes to you, no to most people." Either reveal the bar or maintain the ambiguity.
This is frustrating and unfair to early stage professionals in EA, but I can hardly blame any organization that does this. Good luck out there, because you might be the unicorn for some organization :)
80%➔ 70% Prioritize open residenciesCEEALAR 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.
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:
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.