233Joined Mar 2019


Ah nice, understood!

I don't think you'll find anything from us which is directly focused on most of these questions. (It's also not especially obvious that this is our comparative advantage within the community.)

But we do have some relevant public content. Much of it is in our annual review, including its appendices. 

You also might find these results of the OP EA/LT survey interesting. 

Hi - thanks for taking the time to think through these, write them out and share them! We really appreciate getting feedback from people who use our services and who have a sense of how others do. 

I work on 80k’s internal systems, including our impact evaluation (which seems relevant to your ideas). 

I've made sure that the four points will be seen by the relevant people at 80k for each of these. 

Re. #1, I'm confused about whether you're more referring to 'message testing' (i.e. what ideas/framings make our ideas appealing to which audiences) or 'long term follow up with users to see how their careers/lives have change'. (I can imagine various combinations of these.)

Could you elaborate?

I was interested in seeing a breakdown of the endpoints, before they'd been compressed into the scales AAC uses above. 

Jamie kindly pulled this spreadsheet together for me, which I'm sharing (with permission), as I thought it might be helpful to other readers too. 

Through overpopulation and  excessive consumption, humanity is depleting its natural resources, polluting its habitat, and causing the extinction of other species. Continuing like this will lead to the collapse of civilisation and likely our own extinction. 


This one seems very common to me, and sadly people often feel fatalistic about it. 

Two things that feeling might come from:

  • People rarely talking about aspects of it which are on a positive trajectory (e.g. the population of whales, acid rain, CFC emissions, UN population projections). 
  • The sense that there are so related things to solve - such that even if we managed to fix (say) climate change then we'd still see (say) our fisheries cause the collapse of the ocean's ecosystem. 

It's really cool to see these laid out next to another like this! Thanks for posting  Katja :) 

Makes sense! FWIW, I really enjoyed reading your post. There’s definitely something nice about how listing specific vacancies forces us to get down to get really concrete about what all this theorising actually means, even though doing so has been a bit challenging sometimes!

Thanks for the post Henry! I work at 80,000 Hours and have thought a little bit (along with Maria) about some of the indirect effects of the job board recently - especially about the degree to which it’ll be seen as representing our all-considered views of the best jobs. So it’s good to have some discussion of it!

Like you, I’m really excited about people using the job board to expand their ideas of what EA/long termist roles can look like, especially to types of roles which don’t have (something like) “effective altruism” somewhere in the name. Rob wrote a bit more about this here.

That being said, I do share many of Habryka, Aidan and Ben’s concerns about people thinking of it as representative of good opportunities in EA. It’s missing roles which orgs don’t advertise, lots of opportunities at early stage orgs, roles you design yourself and doesn’t foreground graduate school enough (yet!).

You can read more about In the user guide/FAQ about how we hope for people to think about the roles we list. In particular, I’m keen for people to keep this in mind:

there is a good chance that your best option is actually a role that is not featured on the board. If you find a role that seems promising but is not listed on our board, you should not infer that it is less promising than the roles that we do feature.

Hi Aidan,

I’m Brenton from 80,000 Hours - thanks for writing this up! It seems really important that people don’t think of us as “tell[ing] them how to have an impactful career”. It sounds absolutely right to me that having a high impact career requires “a lot of independent thought and planning” - career advice can’t be universally applied.

I did have a few thoughts, which you could consider incorporating if you end up making a top level post. The most substantive two are:

  1. Many of the priority paths are broader than you might be thinking.
  2. A significant amount of our advice is designed to help people think through how to approach their careers, and will be useful regardless of whether they’re aiming for a priority path.

Many of the priority paths are broader than you might be thinking:

Most people won’t be able to step into an especially high impact role directly out of undergrad, so unsurprisingly, many of the priority paths require people to build up career capital before they can get into high impact positions. We’d think of people who are building up career capital focused on (say) AI policy as being ‘on a priority path’. We also think of people who aren’t in the most competitive positions as being within the path

For instance, let’s consider AI policy. We think that path includes graduate school, all the options outlined in our writeup on US AI policy and the 161 roles currently on the job board under the relevant filter. It’s also worth remembering that the job board has still left most of the relevant roles out: none of them are congressional staffers for example, which we’d also think of as under this priority path.

A significant amount of our advice is designed to help people think through how to approach their careers, and will be useful regardless of whether they’re aiming for a priority path.

In our primary articles on how to plan your career, we spend a lot of time talking about general career strategy and ways to generate options. The articles encourage people to go through a process which should generate high impact options, of which only some will be in the priority paths:

Unfortunately, there’s something in the concreteness of a list of top options which draws people in particularly strongly. This is a communication challenge that we’ve worked on a bit, but don’t think we have a great answer to yet. We discussed this in our ‘Advice on how to read our advice’. In the future we’ll add some more ‘niche’ paths, which may help somewhat.

A few more minor points:

  • Your point about Bill Gates was really well put. It reminded me of my colleague Michelle’s post on ‘Keeping absolutes in mind’, which you might enjoy reading.
  • We don’t think that the priority paths are the only route through which people can affect the long term future.
  • I found the tone of this comment generally great, and two of my colleagues commented the same. I appreciate that going through this shift you’ve gone through would have been hard and it’s really impressive that you’ve come out of it with such a balanced view, including being able to acknowledge the tradeoffs that we face in what we work on. Thank you for that.
  • If you make a top level post (which I’d encourage you to do), feel free to quote any part of this comment.

Cheers, Brenton

Thanks for this post - I agree with your main point that there are many ways to contribute without working at organisations that explicitly identify with the effective altruism community, as would the rest of 80,000 Hours (where I work). In fact, I might go further in emphasising this.

The overwhelming majority of high impact roles in the world lie outside those organisations – with governments, foundations, intergovernmental agencies, large companies and, as you point out, academia. The majority of people interested in effective altruism should be taking roles in places like these, not EA orgs. Unfortunately, when we highlight specific roles there’s a bias towards opportunities we know about due to our involvement in the community, but where we’ve managed to correct for that (such as in the AI strategy and governance problem area of our job board) it’s clear that there are lots of valuable roles focusing on our top problems at a wide range of organisations.


I agree that when considering their future career path, people should think about what skills and expertise they already have(link, link.)That might mean - if you’re enjoying and succeeding in your current path - staying there and using that position to influence your field / company in a positive direction. Though it also might also mean thinking about how your skills might translate to other effective careers. For example, governments tend to be keen to hire people with science PhDs or tech skills, as shown by things like the AAAS fellowship and Tech Congress in the US. These don’t tend to feel like a natural step from a PhD, but being a scientific adviser in government seems plausibly pretty high leverage.

Since you mentioned academia, I thought readers might be interested in a few resources that might be useful for them if they’re looking to influence their academic field. There’s a Facebook group for EA academics to share what they’re working on and help each other. Luke Muehlhauser wrote an excellent report on cases where people successfully and unsuccessfully tried to deliberately build new fields. One case study that's particularly interestingly is that of neoliberal economics (written up compellingly by Kerry Vaughan), which is often held up as a great example of what can be achieved through careful work both within academia and with the people who disseminate ideas – journalists, authors, think tanks etc. Finally, there’s our career review.

A few nice examples I've seen along these lines:

ACE's graphs on how relatively neglected farm animal welfare is.

Wait But Why on putting time in perspective.

A bunch of art on space, of which this clip of the virgo supercluster is an example.

And my favourite - 'If the Moon Were Only 1 Pixel - a tediously accurate scale model of the solar system'.

Load More