Thanks for the questions!

Are you saying that people would read "senior" in a job description as meaning "older" rather than "more experienced"?

No, I'm saying that they would interpret it to mean "having more years of formal experience (rather than e.g. having had a wider variety of experiences, or having had more useful experiences)" and I instead want a word which means "more skilled".

Can you elaborate on your reluctance to hire an "old" person?

No reluctance! I expect check the "20+ years of experience" box on the eag applications  myself. I just am bemoaning the fact that the word "senior" indicates both age and skill, and I want a word which only applies to the latter. 

At least, people should say that the field is bottlenecked on highly skilled generalists.

Thoughts on how to do this as a hiring manager? Things I've considered:
 

1. Title the role "Senior [whatever]." I think this is ok, but in many fields "senior" is a synonym for "old", so this title causes talented young people to not apply (and untalented old people to apply).
2. Say "if you can do X, then you should apply". This is ideal, but it's often hard to give an objective enough test that it doesn't end up just effectively being a test of the candidate's self-confidence.
3. Say "if you have done X, then you should apply". Easier to evaluate objectively than (2), but artificially limits the candidate pool to only people who have done something very similar before.
4. Literally say "highly skilled generalist." Seems kind of pretentious, and it also seems like it's effectively a self-confidence test for the candidate.
5. Ask for referrals from people who I know well enough that I can effectively say "highly skilled generalist" and they will apply that criterion in a way that I would endorse. This is good but means I don't hire from outside my circle.

I'm curious what you think economic orthodoxy is if Hanson's claim "[AI will cause the world economy to] double every few months or faster" is more of a disagreement with EA orthodoxy than economic orthodoxy?

(I'm also interested in what you think the EA orthodoxy is; "months-long doubling times" feels like a pretty mainstream view even amongst people working full time in AI safety, though I agree that it differs from, e.g. Eliezer Yudkowsky c. 2008.)

Thanks for writing this! I'm on the other side (wanting to hire generalists) and I share your skepticism about the "write publicly" advice. I think the actual advice should be more like "clearly demonstrate success in the thing you are trying to get hired for," which usually doesn't involve writing.

(Although I do think that generalist roles can be particularly hard to demonstrate success in. For example, I expect that writing about recruiting might actually be one of the better ways to clearly demonstrate your skill in recruiting, even though recruiting per se doesn't usually involve much writing.)

Thanks for writing this up! I hadn't realized that the feb protest was so big.

This is super cool, thanks for doing it. 

What does the average scholar think about this situation? ...They think that the work falls beneath standards because it has not been through the system of review which nearly all scholars think is required for work to reliably meet minimal scholarly standards.

This is not my experience. The arxiv version of my paper has been cited 97 times; the peer-reviewed version 7 times. The only time I can remember someone saying the paper shouldn't be trusted because of not having been peer-reviewed yet was, ironically, on the EA Forum. 

You can compare the peer review comments with those on LessWrong. Neither is a pareto improvement over the other, but what in hindsight has proven to be the strongest critique (that growth is actually superexponential, not exponential, because of e.g. post-training) was only mentioned on LW (and twitter). 

Peer review has many things to recommend it but, as might be guessed from a post whose "Criticism of peer review" section consists solely of claims that all criticism of peer review is invalid, this post is overstating the case. 

This is a cool idea!

What's your explanation for why they attack EAs rather than, say, the AI ethics crowd?

I think the AI ethics crowd is the subject of attacks (though arguably this is because they tried to seek power and influence).

I also consider this to a lesser extent around animal sentience arguments

+1, "it would be very easy for me to ignore the possibility that nematodes might be conscious" is a major impediment to thinking clearly about animal sentience (including for me).