Hi EA Forum,
I'm Holden Karnofsky I'm here to answer any questions about jobs at Open Philanthropy. I'll be here today from 9:30am to 12:30pm Pacific time (with some breaks) and will likely respond to comments later on as well.
We'd hate to miss out on strong applicants because of misconceptions about the roles, so I hope people will ask whatever is on their mind, on topics from office environment to day-to-day work to the likely long-term trajectory of the role. I think Open Philanthropy jobs are among the best possible ways for effective altruists to have impact, and I hope anyone who could imagine performing well in these jobs will at least consider applying!
Please post different questions as separate comments, for discussion threading.
Looking forward to it!
Added 12:32pm Pacific time: This concludes the "official" portion of the AMA, but feel free to post more questions; we may respond to them later on!
In my current field – biomedical research – there’s a tendency for the best researchers to be drawn towards important problem areas, but to then detour towards interesting problems instead of important ones when choosing a specific research topic. I think this is especially true for generalists, who often have a wider perspective on why the Really Cool problem is Really Cool. I’m guessing similar things happen in most fields. Does the Open Philanthropy Project try to combat this? As a Research Analyst, will the aim always be Important over Interesting?
Thanks! :)
We're certainly not using the same standards as academia! In general, we aim to base assignments on a combination of 1. How we judge what's most important to do (in terms of accomplishing as much good as possible) 2. What the employees themselves are motivated and interested to work on (including their own judgments of how to do as much good as possible).