Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Oliver Kuperman
1 min read1 answer 4

27

AI safetyCareer choiceThreads
Frontpage

While EA has always been rather demanding, it never felt as urgent as it does today. While it always seemed tremendously beneficial to contribute to immediately preventing the further transmission of Malaria, or reducing carbon emissions, or addressing other long term issues, the opportunity to do so never felt like it would disappear in the future, allowing for long term investments in oneself, like going to college. 

 

However, AI has changed this. Based on most indications from industry experts, and prediction markets, it seems both like AI is advancing faster than previous  expectations, and that AGI is rapidly approaching. Manifold gives about a 48% of AGI being developed before 2028[1], Metaculus [2] has a median estimate by 2030, and many public figures associated with AI have revised their timelines upwards[3][4].

 

I am currently in the undergraduate class of '28, and I honestly do not know what to do. If I just continue my trajectory as a CS major, the job market I face upon graduation may be hyper competitive to enter into due to advances in current AI alone (much less AGI). Honestly, I am now highly considering dropping out of college, or at least switching majors. What do you think?

 

I would really like to help the cause of AI safety, but I don't feel like I have the potential to be a genius AI researcher, and at the earliest I would be able to get a PHD in 2031. Maybe certain AI safety charities would be valuable to donate to?

 

 

  1. ^

    https://manifold.markets/RemNi/will-we-get-agi-before-2028-ff560f9e9346

  2. ^

    https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-general-intelligence/ 

  3. ^

    https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/1i8w4zo/google_deepmind_ceo_demis_hassabis_says_agi_that/

  1. ^

    https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1g5vt99/yann_lecun_i_said_that_reaching_humanlevel_ai/

Show all footnotes

27

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by
Top

9
2
2

Without being able to comment on your specific situation, I would strongly discourage almost anyone who wants to have a highly impactful career from dropping out of college (assuming you don’t have an excellent outside option).

There is sometimes a tendency within EA and adjacent communities to critique the value of formal education, or to at least suggest that most of the value of a college education comes via its signaling power. I think this is mistaken, but I also suspect the signaling power of a college degree may increase—rather than decrease—as AI becomes more capable, and it may become harder to use things like, e.g., work tests to assess differences in applicants’ abilities (because the floor will be higher).

This isn’t to dismiss your concerns about the relevance of the skills you will cultivate in college to a world dominated by AI; as someone who has spent the last several years doing a PhD that I suspect will soon be able to be done by AI, I sympathize. Rather, a few quick thoughts:

  1. Reading the new 80k career guide, which touches on this to some extent (and seeking 80k advising, as I suspect they are fielding these concerns a lot).
  2. Identifying skills at the intersection of your interests, abilities, and things that seem harder for AI to replace. For instance, if you were considering medicine, it might make more sense to pursue surgery rather than radiology.
  3. Taking classes where professors are explicitly thinking about and engaging with these concerns, and thoughtfully designing syllabi accordingly.
Oliver Kuperman1
0
0

My concerns are oriented around CS specifically, as I literally feel I am currently worse at coding than Chat GPT, that AI will continue to improve at it in the near term, and that the CS job market will become hyper competitive due to the combination of an oversupply/ backlog of CS majors and a shrinking number of job entries. 


Thanks for the recommendation about 80K advising, that seems like a good resource.

Reply
Comments4
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Davidmanheim4
2
1

"EA has always bee[n] rather demanding,"

I want to clarify that this is a common but generally incorrect reading of EA's views. EA leaders have repeatedly clarified that you don't need to dedicate your life to it, and can simply donate to causes that others have identified as highly effective, and otherwise live your life.

If you want to do more than that, great, good for you - but EA isn't utilitarianism, so please don't confuse the demandingness of the two.

Reply
Oliver Kuperman1
0
0

Fair point. In the future I will think more about acknowledging that distinction, especially when engaging with an audience (unlike this one) which isn't already comfortable with EA.

Reply
David Mathers🔸4
1
0

Not an answer to your original question, but beware taking answers to the Metaculus question as reflecting when AGI will arrive, if by "AGI" you mean AI that will rapidly transform the world, or be able to perform literally every task humans perform as well as almost all humans. If you look at the resolution criteria for the question, all it requires for the answer to be yes, is that there is a model able to pass 4 specific hard benchmarks.  Passing a benchmark is not the same as performing well at all aspects of an actual human office or lab job. Furthermore, none of these benchmarks actually require being able to store memories long-term and act coherently on a time scale of weeks, two of the main things current models lack. It is a highly substantial assumption that any AI which can pass the Turing test, do well on a test of subject matter knowledge, code like a top human over relatively small time scales, and put together a complicated model car can do every economically significant task, or succeed in carrying out plans long-term, or have enough commonsense and adapatibility in practice to fully replace a white-collar middle manager or a plumber. 

Not that this means you shouldn't be thinking about how to optimize your career for an age where AI can do a lot of tasks currently done by humans, or even that AGI isn't imminent. But people using that particular Metaculus question to say "see, completely human-level or above on everything transformative AI" is coming soon, when that doesn't really match the resolution criteria, is a pet hate of mine. 

Reply
Oliver Kuperman2
0
0

I agree on the Metaculus prompt being unclear, but the manifold market is far more clear. For the purposes of resolution: 

“Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) refers to a type of artificial intelligence that has the ability to understand, learn, and apply its intelligence to a wide variety of problems, much like a human being. Unlike narrow or weak AI, which is designed and trained for specific tasks (like language translation, playing a game, or image recognition), AGI can theoretically perform any intellectual task that a human being can. It involves the capability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.”


That definition seems to imply a system that will permanently change the knowledge economy, but anyways, I am more interested in what I should do with my time before such a system is developed.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in AI safety
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
4
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
35
Apply to MATS 8.0!
Ryan Kidd
·
0
0
View more