Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Yonatan Cale3
0
0

Another opinion: I think direct AI research kind of <exaggeration> can't be measured in money </exaggeration>.

Those people are missing, and AFAIK the AI safety orgs really want to hire people that are also aligned in their values, which is hard to find, and offering a high salary isn't enough to find more of those people.

Please note that even if you 100% agree with me, I do not (!) think this a good enough reason on its own to make a decision. Questions like personal fit which I asked above are also really important, and I don't think I know enough about you to actually recommend something specific yet

Reply
See in context
by SentientBunny11
2 min read6 answers 2

24

Building effective altruismCareer choiceSoftware engineering
Frontpage

Hello! I'm a fourth-year undergrad in the United States majoring in computer science and I'm graduating after next semester. I'm also a group organizer for an EA university group which I started this semester. I've been surprised by how straightforward it was for us to start an EA group and, through advertising and running an introductory EA fellowship, help dozens of students this semester learn about EA and become convinced of the core ideas. I'm excited about the idea of starting additional EA university groups and I think that would be pretty valuable (and apparently someone at Open Philanthropy thinks high-quality community-building would be better than donating a whole lot of money). It seems that other sorts of community-building could be pretty high-impact as well, although I'm not that familiar with them.

My current job plans are: do software engineering for two years (I currently have a new grad software engineering offer with a unicorn, which I'm pretty keen on), and then transition into EA community-building (or maybe AI safety engineering or something, depending on what seems higher-impact). This post isn't under my real name in case said company is browsing the EA Forum and recognizes my name (would be cool if they were browsing the EA Forum, but I'm not gonna risk it).

Another option is to jump straight into EA community-building after graduation. It sounds like the Centre for Effective Altruism will shortly have a lot of roles open for university campus community-building (honestly sounds like they're desperately trying to find people so that sounds like some nice counterfactual impact), and there are also opportunities from Redwood Research and Lightcone Infrastructure.

Some reasons to do software engineering, at least for a while:

  • Build career capital that is legible outside the EA community, at a company that's reasonably prestigious (at least within tech). I think this increases the options that I have available and also makes my later work doing random things like EA community-building look more reputable.
  • Build career capital relevant for things like software engineering or machine learning engineering for AI safety.
  • Take advantage of new grad opportunities. A lot of non–new grad software engineering opportunities require a year or two of industry, non-internship experience, and new grad opportunities are generally limited to people who graduated in the past year. Although I don't think it would be impossible for me to get a decent software engineering job later on with just internship options, I think my options would be significantly limited.
  • Not raise a ton of eyebrows from my family.

Reasons to jump straight into community-building:

  • Get in some more person-hours of EA community-building time in before transformative AI comes(?). I think this is actually a pretty important consideration—I don't mean to meme it too hard.
  • Work hours would probably be pretty flexible and I do like to take naps in the middle of the day

I'd like to choose whichever option is higher-impact. What are your thoughts? In terms of what impact means to me, I think my cause prioritization and values are about the same as 80,000 Hours and the Centre for Effective Altruism. I'll also be applying for advising from 80,000 Hours but I wanted to hear some thoughts from the broader EA community.

24

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


6 Answers sorted by
Top

Mau

28
1
0

Maybe you're already thinking this, but specifically for community building / meta-EA career paths, my impression is doing 2 years of meta-EA would be much better (in terms of both career capital and direct impact) than 2 years of software engineering at a startup. Intuitions behind this include:

  • Community building experience seems to be highly valued by meta-EA employers / grantmakers / cofounders, because of its clear relevance
  • Maybe the impacts of community building are cumulative, which makes additional work early on especially valuable
  • I'd guess recent graduates tend to have a much easier time becoming friends with university students than older people (and anecdotally, these friendships seem super important for community builders' impact)
  • Getting more meta-EA experience soon would help prepare you to take on management/mentorship roles or otherwise more ambitious projects in meta-EA sooner. More generally, if impact per year grows as one gets more relevant experience, then starting earlier lets you have more time at the heights of your ability to have impact.

(I guess the exception would be if you want to do meta-EA through software engineering.)

RyanCarey11
0
0

My questions would be:  do you want to do community building an EAR projects in 5-10 years, and do you really have great community-building opportunities now (good org, good strategy for impact, some mentorship)? 

If yes for both, then doing community-building looks good. It aids your trajectory moreso than software. It won't sacrifice much career/financial security, since software is not that credential-based; you can return to it later.  And going into community building now won't raise any more eyebros than doing it in two years would.

If no for one or both questions, e.g. if you see yourself as suited to AIS engineering, then software might be better.

Reply
8
SentientBunny11
I don't feel more than 50% confident that I want to do a community-building or meta-EA career path. Community-building might be over-represented in the career plan I sketched out above, as until a few days ago, I hadn't seriously considered the idea that software engineering or machine learning engineering for AI safety were things that I could be qualified to contribute to. (Previously, I thought that AI safety ML engineering positions were exceedingly competitive, and I didn't know that software engineering for AI safety was much of a thing. My update was from browsing the Anthropic job board and noticing the lack of hard requirements for many of these positions, and from people on the EA Corner Discord thinking it was doable to get an AI safety position. I also re-read "AI Safety Needs Great Engineers" with a fresh perspective. The first time I read it, I was thinking, "wow, I have no idea how to write a substantial pull request to a major machine learning library; therefore, I can't work in AI safety". The second time I read it, I paid more attention to the sentence "Based on the people working here already, 'great software engineer' and 'easy to get on with' are hard requirements, but the things in the list above are very much nice-to-haves, with several folks having just one or none of them.")
4
RyanCarey
OK, then it sounds like a tricky judgment call. I guess you could ask: compared to most technically-minded EA students, do you have a comparative advantage in social skills vs coding, or the reverse? And are your community-related job offers more selective and impressive than the software ones, or the reverse? 

Ozzie Gooen

24
0
0

I think I agree with Jack on the AI side.

If you can get a job at Anthropic, Redwood, maybe OpenAI or Deepmind or other AI companies, those might be better than most software startups.

The first 1-2 years of software engineering work can be amazing for the experience. It really can depend on what team you work with though. Some have great standards and help train junior engineers. Others don't, and won't teach decent practices. My intuition is that the startup you're considering is likely good (startups with lots of respect in tech circles, like Stripe, can be great), but I suggest asking some people who work there.

Many of the EA tech groups are much smaller or very early, so won't be able to provide the same experience. (and, if you join them anyway after, you'll get the experience they do provide then, anyway). Just chat to people in them and see what mentorship they can provide.

2 years seems like a bit much to me. If you join the software engineering role (and it's not directly EA), I'd suggest being really intense about it if you can. Try to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Then, after 12 months, gauge how much you're learning (and maybe, how quickly the stock options are rising in value) and decide things from then.

For me, I found that my first real "junior developer job" was incredibly interesting and useful, but the work got pretty boring after around 6 months. I left around 14 months in, and in retrospect, sort of wish I left ~2 months sooner.

One other thing to note: try to learn full-stack skills, not narrow domain skills. Spending 1-2 years on a company-specific database solution is bad, doing it with similar tools to what a tiny startup would use is good (for many EA sorts of things)


Personally, I'm excited about more strong generalist EAs having 1-2 years of strong software engineering experience. Software engineering comes up all over the place. It's a highly general-purpose skill. It would give you a bunch of options later on.

Lakin

10
0
0

FYI If finances are any constraint for you, community building is going to have a really hard time paying you much (as is the case for past and present full-time community builders).

Jack R

5
0
0
  • Build career capital relevant for things like software engineering or machine learning engineering for AI safety.

Random, but a piece of advice that I've heard is that career capital for these things is only useful for getting your foot in the door (e.g. getting a coding test) and then your actually performance (rather than your resume) is what ends up getting you/not getting you the job. If you think you can succeed at this, I think it would almost certainly be better to just directly optimize for getting to a performance level that's good enough for the AI safety job you want, rather than spending a few years software engineering (which might still be useful, but would be a less optimal way to spend your time, probably). I recommend reaching out to any AI safety orgs you hope to work at to confirm whether this is the case, in case you can get a few additional years of impact.

ETA: That said, ignoring personal fit, probably: AI safety paths where you skip the SWE ~= community building path >> software engineering at a start-up

Also, if you want to chat about Lightcone and/or Redwood, I'm doing work trials for both of their generalist roles (currently at Redwood, switching to Lightcone soon)--feel free to DM me for my Calendly :)

Ozzie Gooen8
0
0

but a piece of advice that I've heard is that career capital for these things is only useful for getting your foot in the door (e.g. getting a coding test) and then your actually performance (rather than your resume) is what ends up getting you/not getting you the job.

In my experience, most orgs are much more excited about bringing on "senior engineers" than "junior engineers", and often the only way to get the performance to be a "senior engineer" is to work in a company to build those skills. It doesn't have to take long though.

Reply
Charles He2
0
0

 your actually performance (rather than your resume) is what ends up getting you/not getting you the job. 

There are many roles of engineer and I think for senior people in the interview process, experience, and "gravitas" or something helps. 

I know someone who told their FAANG recruiter that they didn't like LeetCode. The recruiter, who they didn't know, then gave their personal number and texted out problems. Later, when the person didn't pass, the recruiter then gave them a mulligan to do the test again. This person's role was not an SWE, ... (read more)

Reply

Yonatan Cale

3
0
0
  1. Would you tell us more about where you think you'd have better personal fit / what you'd wake up enthusiastic to do?
  2. Maybe there's some creative solution where the other student communities still come up even if you don't run them? (Perhaps you could delegate this and only mentor the community leaders, or something like that?)
Yonatan Cale3
0
0

Another opinion: I think direct AI research kind of <exaggeration> can't be measured in money </exaggeration>.

Those people are missing, and AFAIK the AI safety orgs really want to hire people that are also aligned in their values, which is hard to find, and offering a high salary isn't enough to find more of those people.

Please note that even if you 100% agree with me, I do not (!) think this a good enough reason on its own to make a decision. Questions like personal fit which I asked above are also really important, and I don't think I know enough about you to actually recommend something specific yet

Reply
Yonatan Cale3
0
0

FYI, it's not impossible to take naps at some tech companies. This is me around 2014 working in an American corporation, I'd take a nap every second day more or less. I think the situation since then has become even more relaxed (no pun intended) : In my last job, I also took naps, and the bean bag was supplied directly by the Operations department.

Reply

Chris Leong

3
0
0

I'd suggest joining a graduate software position for 12 months and then seeing where you are after that as I do think that the opportunity cost of missing the graduate programs could be pretty high.

Comments2
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
-13
0
0

I'm in a pretty similar situation (I'm a CS senior in the US and took a SWE job offer from a unicorn). If I had the choice, I would go into direct work. Ben Todd said the following earlier this year:

I’d typically prefer someone in [non-leadership] roles to an additional person donating $400,000–$4 million per year (again, with huge variance depending on fit).

To me, those numbers sound high enough to swamp the downsides of working on community building that you mentioned, if you'd like to choose whichever option is higher-impact. 

(I'm posting this as a comment because it's not as well-thought-out as the answers others have given.)

Reply
Luise1
0
0

Have you considered applying for funding from the EA Infrastructure fund? They're keen to support community building as far as I know :)

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
24
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
48
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
4
4
View more