Thanks very much for writing this post.

To speak it frankly, However, I think this post are a little bit optimistic for our abilities to build up our skills. In reality, we need to be 100% efficient and hard-working to make ourselves to become the most expert at some specific skills. However, a lot of us aren't efficient enough in managing time. Of course it's important to make ourselves become very talented, but it's also cruicial to think what are our backup plans if we turn out to become an avergae person. And another question would be even if all of the EAs can be such skilled, the funding in EA organizations isn't enough to hire all of the people, so it's important to think how can we "get a job" that can contribute efficiently in the non-EA world. Finally, I'd be grateful if the author is willing to share opinion about this post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fpJLTFH9entmNoFMM/the-value-of-non-ea-world-direct-work-vs-earning-to-give-for

Hello Kestrel,
Thanks for your reply. I'm really grateful for it. I’d like to ask whether you think your view that “earning to give more would generally be better than direct work” would still hold 5–10 years from now. By that time, we may have discovered effective AI s-risk interventions that could be implemented in the non-EA world (even if they involve a high safety tax).

Thanks for your answering a lot. I'm really grateful for this.

Your response makes sense to me. However, if today you have to decide between earn to give (suppose you can donate $100000 USD a year) and to work directly in EA organisations, how can you make the decision given your donation ability and talent? 

Of course if you have high talent you should work directly, but how do you decide if you only have average or low talent in your cause area?

Update: After some self-thinking, I think maybe reading the basics of economics would be helpful given currently I bascially don't know any economics

Thanks for your replying a lot. I'm really grateful for this.

Yeah, I agree most senior EAs don't have like a completely accurate math model to calculate how worth is earn to give. However, I believe they have a thinking framework which can have an approximate answer that's way more accurate than my own thoughts. Which means, there should be a guessing framework(on value of earn to give, which is probably complicated)to make a best guess rather than random guessing.

Hello Mr.Ling:

I've recieved your email and have replied you. 

Thanks a lot for your kindness.

Thank you very much for your kindness, I would email you later

Thanks for your answering a lot first. Well, I know that most EA organizations and grantmakers said talent is primary constraint. However the fact seems to be it's very difficult to get a job in EA organizations. I'm unsure, but it also seems difficult(like less than 50% success rate) to get independent research fundings from grantmakers. Of course that if you have great talent on researching it'll be way easier to get fundings, but I'll probably just become a mediocrity researcher, therefore I probably can't rely on EA grantmakers to support me.

Ｗhat do you think about my main question: Is it difficult to find or create altruistic work within non-EA organizations?(especially in reducing AI s-risks)

Hello Thao: Thanks a lot for your patience replying first. 

I don’t think double majoring itself is difficult, but it is very time-consuming. It would require 4–5 additional years of studying medicine and doing hospital internships. Since I believe AI s-risks are probably far more important than bio x-risks and global health, I think it makes more sense to major only in CS and contribute directly, rather than spending those extra years learning medicine.

However, I’m worried that without enough financial security, I might end up working in non-EA organizations until retirement and be unable to focus on the most altruistic work. That’s my main concern: How likely is it to find a career outside EA organizations that still allows me to work on altruistic goals, such as reducing AI s-risks?

In Taiwan, medical and dental school tuition is very cheap, so debt wouldn’t be an issue. In fact, I’m considering switching from medicine to dentistry, because dental residency is 2–4 years shorter than medical residency. Based on my estimation, after graduating it might take around 5 years to earn about $500k if I choose the dentist path.

I’m actually currently a first-year university student, double-majoring in medicine and computer science. (Different from the US, In Taiwan, medical education begins at the undergraduate level, and one obtains a doctor’s license after completing the medical program.)

 I’ve still been struggling with a major decision: whether I should continue my double major in medicine or focus solely on computer science. In EA's community’s reasoning, medicine seems less relevant to priorities like AI safety or s-risks. However, one major advantage of studying medicine is financial stability. Before transformative AI arrives, I suspect that computer science jobs might become increasingly competitive, whereas doctors may still earn a stable income. Therefore, in an uncertain future, I’ve considered working as a doctor temporarily (perhaps for around 10-15 years), saving most of the earnings to reduce future financial pressure.

(Although, I’m aware that future AI progress could eventually automate much of medical/dentist work.)

Therefore, if it's really difficult to find EA jobs in non-EA companies, it would increase the argument of double majoring in medicine/dentist.