Hide table of contents

What is parkour?

Parkour is a training discipline where practitioners move from one place to another .. in the fastest and most efficient way possible.[1]

The mainstream approach to getting from A to B is to walk. To use public sidewalks, to not cut across the grass. To walk past obstacles and stay on level ground.

Parkour imagines many faster options, including:

  1. running,
  2. climbing,
  3. swinging,
  4. vaulting,
  5. jumping, etc.

What is career parkour?

Career parkour is the practice of getting to your ultimate ideal job the fastest, often by gaining career capital in unconventional ways.

The mainstream approach to getting a job is scrolling through public job application sites and sending your CV to those you find interesting. If that doesn’t work you maybe consider asking a few friends for references.

Career parkour imagines many faster options, including:

  1. get relevant people* to know you
  2. show relevant people how you work (and you make sure you work well)
  3. show relevant people how you have worked (and show that your work is good)
  4. broadcast what you're looking for via your network
  5. show initiative

*relevant people = people that are able to influence your chances of getting employed in the organization you want to be employed in

But why?

I like using the metaphor of "parkour" because it might help people intuit what it means to use non-conventional ways to boost your career. It also might give you a sense of how people should respond when you have done it correctly. Might be something like: "Whoa, how did you make that happen?" or "That's so cool!"

Furthermore, it seems important still to remind many EAs struggling to get hired, that just sending CVs might not be enough. Other group leads have also noted how many people in EA do not network enough when looking for jobs. This might be because they don't want to "waste" others' time or maybe because they feel underconfident.

So let's practice parkouring more.

Some real-life examples

Using pseudonyms for anonymity.

Julia's example

Julia (a machine learning Master's student) heard Chris, a well-known figure in AI safety, talk about his website. She wrote to Chris: "I really like your website, but I think I could make it load 200% faster. Can I do it for free?" Chris said: "Go right ahead!". 

A while later, Julia had an assignment at school that had to involve partners outside the university. So she again wrote to Chris and asked: "Do you want me to work on your website’s machine learning for 2 months?" And again, Chris said yes. 

This project first led to a paid full-time summer job, then a recommendation letter to top 10 universities, then introductions to several top AI safety professors.

Joseph's example

As an undergraduate, Joseph participated in a self-development program organized by an Organization. He volunteered there for two more years. 

Some time passes, Joseph does some work with various local NGOs and works at an NGO consultancy. A year later, the same people from that Organization directly contact Joseph and want him to start and run a new and influential branch of their organization. Leading this branch would involve directing the flow of hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund researchers. Joseph barely has an undergraduate degree.

Rainer's example

Rainer had an idea of how a hardware startup could do things better. He wrote to them: "Here's how you could make things better". The company responded: "We have been thinking about the same thing for a while! Do you wanna help?" 

Rainer got a job with zero competition.

My own example

Richard asked his LinkedIn network for jobs. He got 10 suggestions and three people who could vouch for him if he applied. Most importantly, he found two new job categories he didn't consider before: IT project management and management consultancies.


Disclaimers

A core reason some of these techniques work well is that they are not overused. Take Rainer’s examples - imagine if the hardware startup already received 10+ emails every day from undergraduates with “great ideas” on how to “improve their company”. Best case scenario - Rainer would’ve had much higher competition getting into the organization. Worst case - his email might have gotten ignored.

Another thing my friend wanted to point out is - be sincere. If you write to an organization “can I help you for free”, your focus should be to actually provide value to that organization, not to be hyperfixated on getting hired. If you provide them value, the rest will follow naturally.

Postface

After writing this post, I was informed that the 80,000 Hours article “All the best advice we could find on how to get a job” is basically everything I wanted to say here, but better. So I highly suggest you read that as well.

And, I would be very happy to hear about your career parkour examples in the comments!

  1. ^

    "Parkour."Wikipedia, 18 January 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Re: your point on sincerity:

I think this is quite important in making networking less "icky". It's much easier for me to talk to people when I'm not constantly thinking about how to get something from them.

Some of the more valuable or meaningful networking I have done (with non-EAs) has been when I can just talk about my interests and career goals honestly. I think people respect and appreciate genuine passion and commitment when they see it. (That doesn't mean you should talk their ear off with EA stuff, you just need to tell them enough so they have context)

For what it's worth I like the term career parkour! It definitely sounds more fun than "actively network", and it's nice to see some examples!

Small, but maybe important note: it's good to do this kind of technique in conjunction with others / have backup plans so that you're well positioned even if you fail.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
We’ve written a new report on the threat of AI-enabled coups.  I think this is a very serious risk – comparable in importance to AI takeover but much more neglected.  In fact, AI-enabled coups and AI takeover have pretty similar threat models. To see this, here’s a very basic threat model for AI takeover: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is misaligned and power-seeking 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for itself And now here’s a closely analogous threat model for AI-enabled coups: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is controlled by a small group 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for the small group While the report focuses on the risk that someone seizes power over a country, I think that similar dynamics could allow someone to take over the world. In fact, if someone wanted to take over the world, their best strategy might well be to first stage an AI-enabled coup in the United States (or whichever country leads on superhuman AI), and then go from there to world domination. A single person taking over the world would be really bad. I’ve previously argued that it might even be worse than AI takeover. [1] The concrete threat models for AI-enabled coups that we discuss largely translate like-for-like over to the risk of AI takeover.[2] Similarly, there’s a lot of overlap in the mitigations that help with AI-enabled coups and AI takeover risk — e.g. alignment audits to ensure no human has made AI secretly loyal to them, transparency about AI capabilities, monitoring AI activities for suspicious behaviour, and infosecurity to prevent insiders from tampering with training.  If the world won't slow down AI development based on AI takeover risk (e.g. because there’s isn’t strong evidence for misalignment), then advocating for a slow down based on the risk of AI-enabled coups might be more convincing and achieve many of the same goals.  I really want to encourage readers — especially those at labs or governments — to do something
Recent opportunities in Career choice
48
· · 3m read