(even larger disclaimer than usual: i don't have much experience applying to EA orgs, i'm also not trying to give career advice and wouldn't recommend taking career advice from me, ymmv)
Thanks for posting! I'm broadly sympathetic to this line of reasoning. One thing I wanted to note was that hiring processes seem pretty noisy, and lots of people seem pretty bad at estimating how good they are at things, so I think in practice there might not be that much difference between trying to get yourself hired vs. trying to get the best candidate hired. I think a reasonable heuristic is "try to do well at all the interviews/work tests, as you would for a normal job, but don't rule yourself out in advance, and be very honest and transparent if you're asked specific questions".
I know there is more nuance in your post, but if I take your title at face value, I would say: When I'm evaluating candidates and I catch you not being honest (ie. lying or distorting the truth), I'm going to reject your application. If I catch you lying outright, I'm never going to consider you again as a candidate. If I find out after you were hired that you lied during the application process, I would probably do my best to get you fired. (I mean the ‘you’ in a general sense. I'm not expecting you, JDLC, would lie.)
If you give honest, but unspecific answers, and it's about an important skill, I'm going to ask you follow-up questions to figure out what's going on.
This question has troubled me as well, plus the idea that once you get a high-impact job, if it turns out not to be a perfect fit, there are transaction costs to the organisastion replacing you with a better candidate
[Question]
How honest should you be when applying for high-impact roles?
This is a Draft Amnesty Week draft. I don't think this is likely to be applicable in the 'real world', but worth asking in case!
Commenting and feedback guidelines: I'm happy to receive any questions, responses or similar!
Key Question: Should I be acting differently, when I apply to an 'EA role', compared to applying for 'standard' roles?
Here are my thoughts:
When I'm applying to certain job roles, I (should) care more about the overall best outcome (counterfactual impact), than the personally best outcome.
The personally best outcome is that I get hired for the role.
The overall best outcome is that the best person gets hired for the role, whether or not that is me.
Sometimes these will overlap (when I'm the best candidate). Often they will not.
There are roughly 3 categories of job that I might apply to:
'Standard Jobs': a role where there is no significant positive impact expected.
Example: Getting a job working at my local supermarket.
I only care about the personal outcome.
I expect all applicants to only care about the personal outcome.
'Do-Good Jobs': a role where I expect to have a positive impact, but don't expect to be competing against other EA-aligned people (on average).
Example: Working in a government role where I can influence policy in an important domain (AI Policy, Animal Welfare, etc).
I care about the overall outcome. I want the best person hired.
I expect most applicants to be mostly/exclusively concerned with the personal outcome.
'EA Jobs': a role at an EA org or similar, where I expect a high proportion of the applicants to be EA-aligned in their thinking and principles.
Example: Working at OpenPhil or GWWC.
I care more about the overall outcome than the personal outcome.
I also expect that most applicants care likewise, more about the overall outcome than their personal outcome.
NOTE: In reality, I think this is a spectrum rather than a tertiary division. The categories are more like useful placeholders.
For 'standard jobs', your best plan is just do your best, be competitive, and get the job!
For 'do-good jobs', it seems that I should probably adopt the instrumental goal of getting hired myself, and therefore defer to the same methods as 'standard jobs'.
This will make more sense in comparison with 'EA jobs' below.
It's likely that the best overall outcome aligns with the best personal outcome, (ie. that I am the best person for the job).
This assumes a bunch of implausible stuff about my abilities and having 'the one true good worldview', but I'm glossing over that for now.
The dynamic I'm going for is "Here's a tech policy role. AI alignment is the way to do the overall most good. Most people won't care much about AI alignment. So the way to do the overall most good is for me to get the role and do AI alignment stuff".
It's plausible that the best overall outcome is for another person to get hired. But I should probably ignore this.
There are a small proportion of applicants who are 'better'.
By decreasing my own chances of getting hired, I'm boosting everyone else's chance, so increasing the likelihood of a more negative outcome.
For 'EA jobs', I should probably not be completely competitive. Pursuing the personal best is unlikely to be the way to get the overall best.
It's likely that the best overall outcome is for someone else to be hired (ie. that someone else is better for the role).
If I pursue the best personal outcome, this might result in a worse overall outcome.
In practice, this might look like being much more epistemically honest about my own capabilities and lack thereof.
This decreases the chance of the best personal outcome.
This increases the chance of the best overall outcome.#
Example 1: The application lists many requirements, including 'excellent time management'. I could talk about how I fit the requirements. I could say "I fit all the requirements, {...}, but my time management is pretty poor. If this is really key to the role, you should probably go for someone else".
If I'm in a standard process, I should do the first.
If I'm in an 'EA process', I should say the second, to increase the chance of the best overall outcome.
Example 2: The application asks for programming experience. I could say "I've had experience with Python, building an ML app". I could say "I've done about 10 hours of programming, I copied a couple of templates, made a few minor UI changes, and linked the two templates".
If I'm in a standard process, I should say Sentence 1 to give me the best chance of a good personal outcome.
If I'm in an 'EA process', I should say Sentence 2, to give the most information to the decision maker, and increase the chance of the best overall outcome.
There are Game Theory dynamics going on here.
If everyone in the hiring process cares about the overall outcome, and everyone is epistemically honest, then the best decision gets made.
If most people care overall and are honest, but some people care about personal outcomes and aren't, then those people probably get hired.
There is probably a certain point, at which the proportion of people driven by personal outcome is low enough, than the expected value of epistemic honesty is still high.
Conclusion - when I'm doing EA Job applications, I should plausibly be epistemically honest to the point of the examples above, even though this gives me a lower chance of getting hired.
Here are a bunch of sub-questions about this:
Do some 'EA roles' meet the above conditions, whereby enough people care about the overall outcome, such that extra epistemic honestly is high EV?
If so, which ones? How can you tell?
If so, how should you act differently practically? What types of epistemic honesty are good, and what is 'too far' (if anything)?
If so, can we change hiring the overall hiring process for these roles, to account for the fact that many people care about the overall goals?
How if at all can we deal with the likelihood of people who come in with pure interest in personal goals?
Are any of the suggested changes better than the standard 'just be competitive' advice?
NOTE: I don't hugely endorse the terminology of 'EA role' and 'EA people' but am using it for Draft Amnesty speedrun reasons.
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
Hello! I'm Justin Portela. I got hired by GWWC to make YouTube videos after AI in Context did such a kickass job.
My channel is using that same cinematic, high-production value beauty to talk about everything in the EA universe that isn't AI.
...
“How long have you been v*g*n?”
This is one of the most common icebreakers at animal protection events. It’s a baseline assumption, and it mostly holds true: if you’re out advocating for animals not to be tortured or abused, realistically these days you are v**n, or close. And it makes for good conversation. It seems fairly safe to assume when you meet strangers.
But this assumption is hurting the movement in a way which we don’t always notice: someone new comes into the sp...
(even larger disclaimer than usual: i don't have much experience applying to EA orgs, i'm also not trying to give career advice and wouldn't recommend taking career advice from me, ymmv)
Thanks for posting! I'm broadly sympathetic to this line of reasoning. One thing I wanted to note was that hiring processes seem pretty noisy, and lots of people seem pretty bad at estimating how good they are at things, so I think in practice there might not be that much difference between trying to get yourself hired vs. trying to get the best candidate hired. I think a reasonable heuristic is "try to do well at all the interviews/work tests, as you would for a normal job, but don't rule yourself out in advance, and be very honest and transparent if you're asked specific questions".