I'm definitely post my writings on the forum! (one can just cross-post from substack)

It seems to me that for your topics, there are much stronger reasons to stay on the forum than for leaving it: I suppose you'll get more readers; it will be more convenient for said readers; there's a good comments system; the audio transcription; there are previous of within-forum links; and probably other important things I'm forgetting.

(super interested to hear what was in favor of Substack! :) )

hey! Sorry, I missed this until now.

Quick question: why not write on the EA Forum?

Thanks for this question, I realize it's worth clarifying what I mean exactly: I think there are a lot of valuable conversations happening that never end up being shared on the forum, even though they should be. I think this is because 1) lack of time 2) small demand (there are not that many fieldbuilders) and 3) and potential authors worrying about how the author is going to be perceived if they share their thoughts without much filtering. (e.g. it is easy to come across as elitist when talking about CB, and it takes a lot of time to explain a nuanced take on these issues)

This is awesome! Also a great stepping stone for groups that eventually want to put on an EAGx.

Thanks for expanding on this, Adam! 

Groups want something weird or custom about their courses [...] if they were okay with something standard their members could just take our standard courses.

I'm not sure I agree with this, as AIS collab has done this kind of coordination before, afaik with relatively universal courses. While they might have a preference for customisation, I think most would be willing to compromise for the benefits they get in return, especially if they weren't able to put on their own course otherwise. Whether to let groups who participate do in person sessions is something I'm indeed uncertain about though. For groups that feel very strongly about customization, it is better to just run their own version.

Most group leaders should probably think more carefully about the time trade-offs of getting more things 80% right rather than few things 99% right.

I agree with this and essentially everything else you have shared in the rest of the comment.

Thanks for sharing this, wonderful writing! Have you thought about sending this to Emma Goldberg? :-)

It might also be the safest way to "incubate" an AI Safety organisation (for all the Entrepreneurs out there).

Can you expand on this a bit? Do you mean field-building orgs, or any AIS org in general? :)

Thanks for mentioning all of these! Bluedot has put out so much awesome stuff for the broader fieldbuilding community!

We tried this before with a few groups, and found that adding a third party to organizing a course (especially for smaller courses) can actually add more work than it saves.

Could you expand on this a bit more? This is basically the main crux for us to be running this kind of program, or at least for including groups who would otherwise be able to put up their own courses. Can you think of some specific failure modes that we should be mindful of?

Someone mentioned to me that the problem they see with AISC is that its scope is way too broad. 

I think it's great that you can accommodate a lot of different projects, but I would guess this does make it harder for you to make the case for funding. 

Would you consider giving the option to funders to only fund certain types of projects? I could imagine many people wanting to fund technical research, but not advocacy, and vice versa. 

Thank you for asking, I edited to post to make this clearer. This program is intended for AIS fieldbuilders who would like to run courses in the near future, as well as potential course facilitators who would like to help us with this initiative.

Thanks for the post, Jamie!

Given the call for the Ask me Anything, I was wondering if you would be able to share additional context on the following from your application form:

Important Note: The EA Infrastructure Fund and the Long-Term Future Fund are currently unable to make grants with an end date after August 31st 2025, and any applications to these funds must have a grant period which ends on or before this date. We are working on a solution to this, and hope to be able to remove this restriction as soon as possible. If you were intending to apply for a grant past this date, you are welcome to apply for funding up until August 31st 2025, and once we’re able to make grants past this date again you will be able to apply again for the remaining period.

I'm specifically interested in asking about:

once we’re able to make grants past this date again you will be able to apply again for the remaining period

Is there a risk that EAIF will have to pause grantmaking after August if the issue is not solved, or do you expect this not to be a problem by then?