Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
[comment deleted]1
0
0
Deleted by Technology Policy Fellowship,
See in context
by lukeprog
1 min read 14

38

Existential riskOpportunities to take actionPolicyAI safetyBiosecurityCareer choiceOpen PhilanthropyAI governanceAsk Me AnythingJob listing (closed)LongtermismPublic interest technology
Frontpage

We will be answering questions about a new fellowship program run by Open Philanthropy, the Technology Policy Fellowship. We will begin answering questions in the comments section here on August 6th, and will continue monitoring the post for a few days after that.

What is the OP Technology Policy Fellowship?

This is a US policy fellowship program focused on high-priority emerging technologies, especially AI and biotechnology. Selected applicants will receive policy-focused training and mentorship and be supported in matching with a host organization for a full-time, fully-funded fellowship based in the Washington, DC area. Potential host organizations include executive branch offices, Congressional offices, and think tank programs.

Applications for the program are due by September 15th. Fellowship placements are expected to begin in early or mid-2022 and to last 6 or 12 months (depending on the fellowship category), with potential renewal for a second term. Fellowship opportunities are available for both entry-level and mid-career applicants, and for people both with and without prior policy experience.

More details can be found on the application page and in an earlier EA Forum post.

What types of questions can we answer, and who will answer the questions?

We are happy to field a range of questions, including questions about the content of the program (e.g. types of training fellows will receive), who we think is a good fit for the program, what we will be looking for when assessing applications, and what thinking was behind Open Philanthropy’s decision to launch the program.

Questions about Open Philanthropy’s vision and decision-making will be answered by Luke Muehlhauser, who is the Program Officer for this fellowship. Some of the other questions may be answered by the project team that is helping OP run the fellowship (they will be responding through a fellowship account).

38

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments15


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
quinn13
0
0

(cc'd to the provided email address) 

In Think Tank Junior Fellow, OP writes

Recently obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree (including Spring 2022 graduates)

How are you thinking about this requirement? Is there something flex about it (like when a startup says they want a college graduate) or are there bureaucratic forces at partner organizations locking it in stone (like when a hospital IT department says they want a college graduate)? Perhaps describe properties of a hypothetical candidate that would inspire you to flex this requirement? 

Reply
Technology Policy Fellowship7
0
0

This requirement mainly exists because our host organizations tend to value traditional credentials. However, as we note on the application page, “The eligibility guidelines below are loose and somewhat flexible. If you’re not sure whether you are eligible, we still encourage you to apply.” To the extent possible, we will work to accommodate applicants that we are excited about even if they don’t have traditional credentials. 

We expect most think tanks to fall somewhere between a startup and a hospital IT department, in terms of flexibility. Different think tanks will also have different cultures and policies with respect to credentials. If we receive promising applications from people without a college degree, we may reach out to some potential host organizations on that candidate’s behalf to assess whether host organizations would consider the lack of a traditional credential to be a dealbreaker. Our (and potentially the candidate’s) decision about advancement would depend in large part on the responses we receive to those inquiries.      

Reply
imp4rtial 🔸9
0
0

The listed application documents include a "Short essay (≤500 words)" without further details. Can you say more about what this entails and what you are looking for?

Reply
Technology Policy Fellowship4
0
0

The specific prompts were included in the application form. Apologies that this was not clear. We’ve now added a note along those lines to the fellowship page. 

The prompts are: 

  • Personal statement: “What do you want to get out of this fellowship? Why do you think you are a good fit? Please describe your interest in (and any experience with) policy as well as your area of focus (e.g. AI or biosecurity).”
  • Short essay: “What is one specific policy idea related to AI, biosecurity, or related emerging technology areas that you think the US government should pursue today? Why do you think this idea would be beneficial?”
  • Statement of motivation: “How do your interests and plans align with Open Philanthropy's goals related to societal impacts of technology?”
Reply
tamgent7
0
0

Is this something OP is likely to be facilitating in future years to come too?

Reply
lukeprog3
0
0

I expect Open Philanthropy will want to fund more fellowships like this in the future, but we have some uncertainty about (1) the supply of applicants who are a good fit for the program, and especially (2) the availability of staff and contractors who can run time-intensive programs like this. If we don't run a similar program in the future, I think the most likely reason will be a lack of (2).

Reply
tamgent1
0
0

Is the staff availability problem more about certain skillsets being in short supply (e.g. ability to evaluate, connect and mentor candidates) or just raw operational power (and if so, is the problem here that it's hard to recruit enough people because of the overhead in recruitment, or you don't want to for another reason), or something else?

Reply
lukeprog2
0
0

It's mostly about skillsets, context/experience with both the DC policy world, and familiarity with Open Philanthropy's programmatic priorities.

Reply
axioman2
0
0

Relatedly, what is the likelihood that future iterations of the fellowship might be less US-centric, or include Visa sponsorship?

Reply
lukeprog12
0
0

A large portion of the value from programs like this comes from boosting fellows into career paths where they spend at least some time working in the US government, and many of the most impactful government roles require US citizenship. We are therefore mainly focused on people who have (a plausible pathway to) citizenship and are interested in US government work. Legal and organizational constraints means it is unlikely that we will be able to sponsor visas even if we run future rounds.

This program is US-based because the US government is especially important to our programmatic priorities. That said, it's possible we'll run (or fund someone else to run) a similar program in one or more non-US countries in the future, perhaps most likely in the UK.

Reply
imp4rtial 🔸5
0
0

Are non-US citizens who hold a US work authorization disadvantaged in the application process even if they seek to enter a US policy career (and perhaps aim to become naturalized eventually)?

Reply
Technology Policy Fellowship2
0
0

Non-citizens are eligible to apply for the program if they do not require visa sponsorship in order to receive a placement. For example, someone with a green card should be eligible to work at any think tank. As long as applicants are eligible to work in the roles that they are applying for, non-citizens who aspire to US policy careers will not be disadvantaged.

It’s our understanding that it is difficult for non-citizens to get a security clearance, which is required for many federal government roles, and executive branch offices are generally hesitant about bringing on non-citizens. Congressional offices are legally allowed to take on permanent residents (and even some temporary visa holders), but individual offices may adopt policies favoring US citizens. Out of the three categories, we therefore expect non-citizens to have the easiest time matching with a think tank. However, a lot depends on individual circumstances, so it is difficult to generalize. We encourage non-citizens with work authorization to apply, and would work through these sorts of questions with them individually if they reach the later stages of the application process.

Reply
mosh4
0
0

Could you comment more on how your goals differ from TechCongress or AAAS's? Do you think these differences would mostly affect how you select participants? Or, how might these differences manifest themselves in the experience of a participant? Thank you - this looks very exciting!

Reply
Technology Policy Fellowship1
0
0

In terms of the experience of a participant, we expect our program to closely resemble existing programs like TechCongress and AAAS. Like those programs, we will provide individualized training and matching assistance to help fellows find placements. We will also provide social and professional programming to the fellow cohort in order to build community. Our target placement offices in Congress and the executive branch are also very similar (we also have a think tank category, whereas TechCongress and AAAS focus exclusively on government placements).

In terms of participant selection, one difference is that we are particularly excited to support fellows who share OP’s focus on the long-term implications of a relatively small set of emerging technologies, especially AI and biosecurity (here). However, like TechCongress and AAAS, we will also be paying close attention to “policy fit.” You can read more about what we mean by that in our earlier EA Forum post (here).

Reply
[comment deleted]1
0
0
Deleted by Technology Policy Fellowship,
More from lukeprog
240
EA needs consultancies
lukeprog
· · 10m read
88
88
173
A personal take on longtermist AI governance
lukeprog
· · 8m read
6
6
107
Features that make a report especially helpful to me
lukeprog
· · 3m read
1
1
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in AI safety
28
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
20
Applications Open: Pivotal 2025 Q3 Research Fellowship
2 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
44
Center on Long-Term Risk: Summer Research Fellowship 2025
Center on Long-Term Risk
· · 1m read
0
0
View more