As a single data point in support of your argument, I used to read the EA Forum a few times per week. According to a data from the EA forum, I was a ~98% percentile user. I commented on lots of posts and recognized the names of frequent users. I had a long list of potential posts to write (that are gathering virtual dust), at least some of which probably would have been good posts. These days, I'll visit the EA Forum once a month or less.

Why is this? In roughly descending order of importance:

• I am busy with work; I have a job that involves me working overtime almost every week. My mental energy and my motivation to read the forum is quite low after a long and stressful workday.
• I have the vague impression that I've mostly gotten what I wanted out of the EA Forum: I learned the things, and the new stuff getting posted doesn't really seem to add much. I loved visiting https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/recommendations to see the 'best ever' posts that I haven't yet read. I would literally read a few of those, refresh the page to see the next handful, and read a few of them. But these days when I look at the list of best posts that I haven't read yet, they just don't strike me as very interesting. Maybe they are mundane, maybe they are re-hashing something that I'm already familiar with, but for one reason or another I'm not as interested in them.
• I have the vague impression that there is more slop. There are shallowly self-promotional posts. There are personal blog posts that are basically saying I did a thing and got lucky; you should do it too. There are a lot of organizations posting updates that I think just aren't worthy of being shared on the Forum. Some posts read/feel like they are a corporate blog, or a Substack post of a person actively trying to build their reputation.^[1]

1. ^{^}

   Maybe I should be more forgiving of people trying to build their reputation through online publications. After all, I did that somewhat. I wouldn't have gotten a job in EA if I hadn't posted to the EA Forum. And it isn't a morally horrendous thing to try and get your writing discovered. I guess I can't really gesture to anything more than a hazy sense that some recent writings seem less genuine/sincere.

If you aren't in the EA Operations Slack workspace, it would probably benefit you a lot.

Bravo. This is one of the bests posts I've read about hiring processes on the EA Forum.

MATS is hiring for a Head of People role, which will be both our first fully dedicated HR/People/People Operations role, as well as part of our leadership team.

There are lots of systems and processes that we want to build and develop, and we are looking for people who have the experience of building the HR parts of an organization. This will be a busy and complex role. The most competitive candidates will have experience helping a tech and/or non-profit organization scale from sub-50 to 100+, as well as more than one experience of building an HR function from scratch. Quoting directly from the job description:

We expect to hire someone who has all of the following:

• Demonstrated experience building or significantly expanding HR/People systems in a growing organization. You have set up people processes where few or none existed before - whether in a startup, a scaling nonprofit, or a fast-growing team within a larger org.
• 5+ years of professional experience in People Operations, HR, or a closely related function. Your title might not have been "Head of People" - but you have owned people systems, not just maintained them.
• Fluency in organizational culture, with a strong grasp of how to align organizational dynamics and operationalize values to foster a positive working environment that motivates and empowers people to do their best - ensuring team members feel MATS is a great place to work and grow.
• Experience directly handling employee relations: workplace conflicts, performance management issues, investigations, accommodations, and separations.
• Strong advisory and coaching skills. You have helped managers navigate people topics - leadership, performance, team dynamics, career development conversations - and you're trusted by people at all levels to handle sensitive matters with discretion and care.
• Advanced understanding of the employee lifecycle and fluency managing people operations: professional development, performance review frameworks, employee handbooks / HR policy suites, onboarding programs, learning and training programs, compensation & benefits structures, etc.
• Working knowledge of employment law sufficient to identify risks and make day-to-day compliance decisions without needing to consult counsel on routine matters.
• Clear, proactive written and verbal communication skills. You can write policies people actually read, deliver difficult messages with empathy and professionalism, and adapt your communication to different audiences.
• A collaborative, low-ego approach. You'll be building alongside a brand-new COO and Recruiting Lead - you need to be comfortable with shared ownership, evolving scope, and an org structure that's in flux.

how come they weren’t reaching out when I was the same old James just a month or two ago

Very relatable. I'm not a funder or a grant maker, but when I've been associated with organizations that are well-known or that have some level of prestige the difference is like night and day. I've been involved in hiring quite a bit as well, which also affects things. People have seen a job title of human resources or people operations and wanted to get inside info about job at orgs. It is unfortunately one of the downsides of being associated with power and resources, or even of being perceived as associated.

Are there specific skills that you see that regular training programs don't do well and might be better suited to offer specifically for our ecosystem?

Hmmm, that is a good prompt. I can't really think of any. I do want to see more EAs know how to manage people, to understand what project management actually is, to understand how to run a meeting, how to develop a team, and so on. But those aren't skills that EA has a comparative advantage in training people. I guess I see so many EAs with alignment and general EA knowledge, but lacking these kinds of general professional skills, and I really want these people (who have devoted so much time and effort to EA) to have better professional competencies. But that is probably less efficient than finding people who already have the experience/skills/competencies. So I guess I've been viewing this more emotionally rather than rationally.

TLDR: Is it good that the EA 'bootcamps' tends to spend resources on thinking about career paths rather than developing useful skills?

I have a vague impression that the various 'bootcamps' around effective altruism tend to focus on  something like "motivation, encouragement, and peer support for thinking about (and planning for) impactful career paths" rather than "gaining skills." I keep thinking that we have plenty of people involved in EA who are onboard with the general ideas and who want to contribute, but who lack specific skills. Is this a good thing?

This is all pretty low confidence/exploratory, as I haven't participated in High Impact Professionals, or CEA's Bootcamps, only read about and heard about them.

I'm mainly thinking about people management, budgeting, project management, and similar general professional skills; of course there is also broadly a need for more specific skills, like AI safety researcher.

As of now, this comment has 13 disagree votes. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind those. Is this a disagreement with my claim that "It is very basic professionalism to not hit on, flirt with, or ask out colleagues," or is this a disagreeing with some other aspect of my comment?

EDIT: I made my comment in the context of a small organization, and I now see that my previous comment is over-reaching. The context of flirting with a colleague at a company of 10,000 and and multiple offices/locations is of course very different that flirting with a colleague at a non-profit of only a few dozen people. I still claim that people should not be flirting or hitting on colleagues within a small team, where you see the same people at work every day. But I do understand that the context is different if there is a person that is employed by the same employer and you won't have any projects with that person, or you won't interact with that person as a part of your normal work. I also suspect that I simply have different norms/standards regarding professionalism than many of the commenters here.

Riley also discussed asking me out twice while we were colleagues, once through text and again at a CEA retreat.

In addition to what was written about you and shared, I am shocked that the culture and norms at CEA allowed asking out colleagues. It is very basic professionalism to not hit on, flirt with, or ask out colleagues.

I'm so sorry that you had to endure this, Frances. No one should have such deeply personal information shared non-consensually. I wish that this hadn't happened to you.

MATS is hiring for two roles on the program team. MATS will have more than a dozen employees at EAG San Francisco 2026, so feel free to come talk to use if you are interested in joining the team.

• Program Systems Associate: Build and maintain MATS' internal infrastructure, including databases, data collection forms, and integrations. Refactor legacy systems and collaborate across teams to improve infrastructure and establish best practices. Create ambitious, shared infrastructure for the AI safety talent ecosystem. Requires strong database design skills and a product mindset; software engineering or LLM-assisted coding proficiency preferred.
• Program Talent Manager: Own MATS' full applicant process across 3+ high-volume cycles per year (100+ fellows, 50+ mentors per cohort). Interface with mentors at Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and other organizations to understand talent needs. Design applications, coordinate evaluations, manage reviewers, and prepare applicant shortlists. Develop outreach strategy to attract top talent. Requires strong judgment in evaluating technical/policy candidates and excellent project/stakeholder management; recruiting or structured evaluation experience preferred.