Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Howie_Lempel8
0
0

Agree they have a bunch of very obnoxious business practices. Just fyi you can change a seeing so nobody can see whose pages you look at.

Reply
See in context
by 80000_Hours, Niel_Bowerman, Nick_Beckstead, Benjamin Hilton
2 min read 37

219

Career choiceLongtermismSurveysRequests (open)80,000 Hours
Frontpage

Often it’s really helpful to know who might be good at or potentially some day willing to join exciting projects.

We’re collecting that information, so we can share it with >20 longtermist orgs and >100 longtermist entrepreneurs and funders.[1]

All you need to do is put your name, email and LinkedIn on this form. This will be quick if you have an up-to-date LinkedIn or online CV.

And if you want to, you can give us a bunch more information that might help connect you up with future projects.

Link to census of everyone who could ever see themselves doing longtermist work.

______

Who should fill this out?

This is a census of people who might (now or any time in the future) be interested in joining or launching a project aimed at improving humanity's long-term prospects. This includes employees of current longtermist projects.
 

Why are we doing this?

  1. To populate a spreadsheet of people that various longtermist organisations and individuals might contact when hiring or looking for a co-founder;
  2. To help us better understand the skillsets and current employment of people interested in longtermism.
     

Who will see my response?

Your responses may be shared with any organisation doing longtermist work, such as the ones on this list. 

Your responses may also be shared with more than 100 donors and entrepreneurs in the longtermist space who are looking to fund and start new projects, including the Future Fund regrantors. We will ask these people and organisations not to share your information further.

 

Why would you not want to do this?

  • Your employer might see this! If you work for a longtermist org, your employer will understand that including your name does not mean you want to leave your job. We want you to fill this out, but feel free to skip any sections if that makes you more comfortable.
  • We’re going to share this database with lots of people (>100 people and >20 orgs). So there’s some risk this ends up being shared more widely without our consent. Of course, we would take any breach of your data seriously, but it would also help if you could avoid including anything you wouldn’t want to be widely known.
  • People might reach out to you pitching you on projects, roles and ideas. This is obviously what we want! But this might be a small cost on your time or your inbox.
     

Why should you do it anyway?

  • This might be an extremely high impact use of a few minutes of your time.
  • Organisations have been asking us (80,000 Hours) for a shareable list of people they can hire for years. So we’re finally going to have one!
  • Hiring is really difficult and is a big bottleneck to building new orgs and starting new projects.
  • We want to encourage more people to found new projects. This will also help connect founders to people who might be interested in co-founding or funding their projects.

 

Where can I comment on this census?

If you found a typo, or have an idea for how this census could be improved, please comment in this public doc so we can centrally track suggestions from across multiple sources.  But feel free to comment below if you prefer. 

 

Link to census of everyone who could ever see themselves doing longtermist work.

  1. ^

    Who’s we? This form is maintained by 80,000 Hours, and was designed in collaboration with Nick Beckstead at the Future Fund.

219

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments38


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Rockwell22
0
0

Can you explain how the locations listed as potential places for people to move were selected? Are they locations that have a certain number of longtermist org headquarters that don't accommodate remote employees? I'm biased, but I was surprised NYC wasn't listed. And in general, I think this sort of suvery can end up propagating certain community-level perceptions through what is included and what is omitted (e.g. implying Boston, DC, and SF are longtermist hubs, but NYC is not).

Reply
Niel_Bowerman1
0
0

Hey Rocky,  it was mainly driven by my guesses of where longtermist orgs are hiring at the moment.  I've been getting a bunch of requests to help hiring for roles based in DC, Boston and SF Bay Area, but not as many New York.  I didn't want to add too many options for brevity.  

But there are of course plenty of longtermist organisations hiring in New York at the moment, e.g. these: https://80000hours.org/job-board/?location=new-york-ny

Reply
Owen Cotton-Barratt14
0
0

I feel maybe you should say something like "this will be quick if you have an up-to-date LinkedIn or online CV"? (I don't; I guess I'm unusual but not super-unusual among the population who would otherwise be happy filling this in. People might either not have got to updating a CV recently, or not be happy having one publicly available.)

Reply
Niel_Bowerman3
0
0

Thanks, I've added your suggestion. 

Reply
Owen Cotton-Barratt7
0
0

For the group who have a CV but just don't want it publicly visible, maybe you should have a way of submitting that information that isn't giving a public link?

Reply
Niel_Bowerman1
0
0

Good point - I had forgotten that some people might have this preference.  I've added this option. 

Reply
Niel_Bowerman1
0
0

What do you think about link-sharing via Google Drive?  Or would you rather have it shared with specific emails only? (The former should make sharing the results easier)

Reply
Owen Cotton-Barratt11
0
0

I expect people will vary on this. Maybe most people who would be happy filling in the form at all won't mind much about google drive link-sharing. (I imagine a little more nervousness b/c it's easier for people to share a link to their CV than share e.g. a pdf of their CV)

Of possible interest: 2 minutes reflection from me says that I probably won't get to filling this in b/c "writing a CV" is something I will naturally feel perfectionist about // probably I'd need to spend 1-3 days on it to feel comfortable with it going to this group, and I probably don't want to spend that time (if someone made a bid that something was really important I could imagine myself pushing through the discomfort and doing something faster, but I'm more interested in myself as a stand-in for other people with the same hangups than literally getting a submission from me). If instead of asking for a CV you just had a series of questions about career that I could fill in on the form, I'd be decently likely to spend 20-30 minutes doing that. The key difference is that if I'm doing it for a form there's no social expectation that it's the kind of thing that people put time into polishing, so I don't feel bad about doing a quick rather than perfectionist version.

Reply
Niel_Bowerman5
0
0

I'll think about this some more and may make a lightweight version of this tomorrow.  

(Part of the reason for posting this census here before promoting more widely on mailing lists was to get this kind of feedback.  So I appreciate it! )

Reply
Rebecca1
0
0

I think updating one's LinkedIn with the minimum new information would be substantially easier than this, and potentially more likely than abandoning / procrastinating on the survey?

Reply
Owen Cotton-Barratt8
0
0

(I'm a conscientious objector to LinkedIn. I think the business practices of requiring you to have an account to see other people's accounts, and of showing people who pay who's looked at their page, are super obnoxious.)

Reply
Howie_Lempel8
0
0

Agree they have a bunch of very obnoxious business practices. Just fyi you can change a seeing so nobody can see whose pages you look at.

Reply
Hmash12
0
0

"What obstacles are holding you back from changing roles or cofounding a new project?"

Where's the option for "Cofounding a project feels big and scary and it's hard to know where to begin or if I'm remotely qualified to try"?

Reply
jmsdao12
0
0

In that case that our situation changes in the future, how can we update our answers?

Reply
Niel_Bowerman4
0
0

Feel free to just submit the form a second time if your situation changes. If you want to retract or withdraw any of your answers, you can email census@80000hours.org

Reply
Evie10
0
0

Pretty confused by what some of the cause areas are (e.g. epistemic institutions). I expect my responses were less helpful/ accurate bc of not knowing what some of them meant.

Reply
Niel_Bowerman5
0
0

Thanks for the feedback.  Epistemic institutions are one of the FTX Future Fund  project categories that they use in this post.  I appreciate that that is fairly obscure!  Do you think it would be helpful to link to this post and the 80k problem areas page from that question?

Reply
[anonymous]11
0
0

It seems to me that a decent part of the angle behind this survey is to get longtermists to consider exiting their jobs in order to found projects on the FTX Future Fund list. Do you think this is a fair assessment?

Reply
Evie3
0
0

Given that I was aiming to spend only a few mins on the census, I don't expect that I would have scrolled through the post to find the description of the cause area. 

But some people might, so could be useful. 

Reply
Rebecca1
0
0

I think so

Reply
Caro7
0
0

Exciting! Do you have a deadline for people filling this? 

Reply
GabeM6
0
0

Thanks for making this!

In the future, you may want to ask just one full name question for people who don't fit neatly into the first name/last name split.

Reply
Christian Pearson6
0
0

Great idea for a survey! I have submitted my answers.

I really liked that the list of cause areas is extensive, that you allow multiple choices, and that you offer an "Other" category. I appreciate that the survey was reasonable in length, and that it felt well thought-out.

One potential point of improvement: for the optional answer fields,  I wasn't sure how long to make my responses. From a web form perspective, the fields look nice. However, I found that their single line default size led me to feel that a short response was preferred. It might be helpful to clarify the expected length of responses, such as by stating that there are no expected lengths — I reason that longer answer lengths would give organizations deciding on candidates more information.

Another idea is to summarize all the answers given, allowing one to tweak any mistakes. Though I'm not sure this is possible within the limitations of how you put it together.

Overall, excellent work! I sincerely thank you for taking the time to put this project together. I feel that it will be helpful for people who, like me, are very interested in forming connections to Effective Organizations.

Reply
more better 5
0
0

Have you considered making the survey questions preview-able for potential participants?  People might feel more inclined to fill out the form if able to peruse before deciding to partake.  

I appreciate the work you have done to help streamline this process!

Reply
Yonatan Cale5
0
0

+1

Lots of EAs (developers at least) find it hard to apply to jobs. I hope this is a useful workaround to a lot of that problem

Reply
Linda Linsefors4
0
0

Great initiative!

I'm registering these prediction:

  • They'll get more than 1 000 responses -- 90% chance
  • They'll get more than 10 000 responses -- 40% chance
Reply
Niel_Bowerman1
0
0

Nice!  So far we've had around 3000 responses.

Reply
Ben Pace2
0
0

Sure, done.

Reply
Ezra Newman2
0
0

Do you mean for the title to say "<= 3 mins"? I think you have your ">" inverted. (It took me about 3 minutes for the first section, and about 10 minutes all-in)

Reply
Niel_Bowerman4
0
0

I was meaning to say  "3 or more minutes". 

Reply
Jay Bailey24
0
0

A good call to action, I feel, should be about the upper bound rather than the lower bound. I too assumed that was "<= 3 mins" purely because ">= X time" is very unusual to put in a title. Perhaps changing it to something like "<= 15 mins" would be a good idea.

Reply
Niel_Bowerman3
0
0

Thanks for the helpful pushback.  I've changed the title to include "it'll only take a few mins".

Reply
Ezra Newman1
0
0

Okay, nevermind then!

Reply
Daniel Hnyk1
0
0

Hey. There is a link in optional questions to FTX Future Fund projects, but that is dead already, obviously, so you get 404. (https://ftxfuturefund.org/projects/)

Reply
Ondřej Kubů1
0
0

80 000 hours email: I know the form has changed to allow a CV as a PDF file but I would recommend mentioning the possibility in the emails, too.  Some people not using LinkedIn may not fill in the form because of it. (I had the time to look at the form, but if I was in hurry, I would probably not fill the form because of that.)

Reply
[comment deleted]2
0
0
Deleted by Zach Stein-Perlman,
Curated and popular this week
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
Joris 🔸
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Last week, I participated in Animal Advocacy Careers’ Impactful Policy Careers programme. Below I’m sharing some reflections on what was a really interesting week in Brussels! Please note I spent just one week there, so take it all with a grain of (CAP-subsidized) salt. Posts like this and this one are probably much more informative (and assume less context). I mainly wrote this to reflect on my time in Brussels (and I capped it at 2 hours, so it’s not a super polished draft). I’ll focus mostly on EU careers generally, less on (EU) animal welfare-related careers. Before I jump in, just a quick note about how I think AAC did something really cool here: they identified a relatively underexplored area where it’s relatively easy for animal advocates to find impactful roles, and then designed a programme to help these people better understand that area, meet stakeholders, and learn how to find roles. I also think the participants developed meaningful bonds, which could prove valuable over time. Thank you to the AAC team for hosting this! On EU careers generally * The EU has a surprisingly big influence over its citizens and the wider world for how neglected it came across to me. There’s many areas where countries have basically given a bunch (if not all) of their decision making power to the EU. And despite that, the EU policy making / politics bubble comes across as relatively neglected, with relatively little media coverage and a relatively small bureaucracy. * There’s quite a lot of pathways into the Brussels bubble, but all have different ToCs, demand different skill sets, and prefer different backgrounds. Dissecting these is hard, and time-intensive * For context, I have always been interested in “a career in policy/politics” – I now realize that’s kind of ridiculously broad. I’m happy to have gained some clarity on the differences between roles in Parliament, work at the Commission, the Council, lobbying, consultancy work, and think tanks. * The absorbe
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr
Recent opportunities in Career choice
54
Stripe Economics of AI Fellowship
basil.halperin
· · 3m read
0
0
15
Applications Open for Impact Accelerator Program for EA Professionals
High Impact Professionals
· · 4m read
0
0
35
Center on Long-Term Risk: Summer Research Fellowship 2025
Center on Long-Term Risk
· · 1m read
0
0
View more