I've seen a lot of articles, tweets, and forum posts urging more people to work on AI safety. While I agree that AI safety is extremely important and that more people should be working on it, I'm having a hard time imagining that a lack of interested young professionals is the key problem.

In this post, I briefly explore the job opportunities in AI safety as of May 13, 2023, for someone with a computer science / SWE background and for someone with an operations background, as both of those listed as key ways that people can concretely help on 80K's AI catastrophe problem profile, and both of those skill areas have over 30 corresponding jobs on 

As of May 5, 20223, there are 110 roles for AI safety & policy. 72 of them are in research or software engineering, 40 of them are in ops, and 15 of them are in policy

I'll use research and engineering jobs in AI safety as a first case study because it seems like this is the most directly related to addressing AI risks. Let's pretend that you have a SWE / CS background and are looking to work in AI research. Of the 72 AI research and engineering jobs listed on 80K, six are not actual jobs, but rather expressions of interest, ostensibly so that the organizations can invite you to apply for roles that fit your profile down the road.  33 of the jobs are in San Francisco, 11 are in London, and 22 are remote.  

What if you are fresh out of school and want to work in this problem area? In the US in 2019, there were around ~ 65,000+ annual computer science graduates, and I would expect that number to have gone up in recent years. There are currently only 28 entry level SWE / research roles in the US this year.  So even of < 1% of CS grads want to get into AI safety, there would still be a massive surplus of labor.

I don't have a strong enough awareness of job market trends in this field to know whether the salaries are competitive, but they ranged very widely from around $100k-$350k a year depending on experience levels, and it seems like you could comfortably live in the Bay Area as a single, debt-free recent college grad at the bottom of the salary range. 

I'll use operations jobs in AI safety as a second case study because it seems like operations is the easiest path to working on AI safety for people without a computer science or philosophy degree. (There are currently only two communications roles and 18 policy roles related to the AI safety problem area on 80K.)

Let's pretend that you are an operations manager that doesn't have the time, money, or bandwidth to gain the technical skills for research or SWE jobs. You decide to check out the 40  operations "jobs"  in the AI Safety problem area through 80K. Nine of them are "general applications" that don't seem to be tied to an actual position that exists (there's no clear filter for this, I hand-counted.) Eight of them are actually about information security, not operations. Twenty-four of them are in the Bay area, where if you make less than $117k a year, you technically live in "poverty" by some measures. Most of the ops jobs for AI safety on the 80K site don't have salaries posted, but this one pays a mere $25-$45 per hour. So if someone worked 40 hours a week at this job (assuming paid vacation or you never take time off), you'd make a minimum of $52,000 a year and a maximum of $93,000 a year before taxes. Depending on your personal situation, that may or may not be doable.

In contrast, there are 7,000 AI research jobs, 10,000 remote operations manager roles, and over 4,101 executive assistant roles advertised in the US alone for LinkedIn. These numbers are probably slightly inflated because LinkedIn's keyword search function is not that great, but even if we cut that in half, that still means that there are orders of magnitude more jobs for these people outside of the narrow AI safety niche. 

 I have also completely sidestepped the issue of getting visa sponsorship, etc. if you're not from the US or some other wealthy Western country and want to work on this.

It seems to me that a lot of the well-meaning pleas for EAers to consider working in AI research are a bit misdirected.  It seems more plausible to me (admittedly as an outsider to the AI safety space) that it's the funding and supply that are the bottleneck here.

 

**These categories are not mutually exclusive.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Likely the number of operations roles is significantly influenced by the number of technical and policy roles. I assume that the more technical/policy headcount you have, the more operations headcount you'll need. If the bottleneck is in technical or policy, adding more ops roles may not accomplish very much.

That's a really good point! I updated this post and evaluated the tech job opportunities to reflect this. 

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