Jamie_Harris
Bio
Participation5
Jamie is the Courses Project Lead at the Centre for Effective Altruism, leading a team running online programmes that inspire and empower talented people to explore the best ways that they can help others. These courses and fellowships provide structured guidance, information, and support to help people take tailored next steps that set them up for high impact.
He has very light-touch involvement as a Fund Manager at the Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund, which aims to increase the impact of projects that use the principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge.
Lastly, Jamie is President of the board at Leaf, an independent nonprofit that supports exceptional teenagers to explore how they can best save lives, help others, or change the course of history. (Most of the hard work is being done by the wonderful Jonah Boucher though!)
Jamie previously worked as a teacher, as a researcher at the think tank Sentience Institute, as co-founder and researcher at Animal Advocacy Careers (which helps people to maximise their positive impact for animals), and as a Program Associate at Macroscopic Ventures (grantmaking focused on s-risks).
Posts 47
Comments409
Topic contributions5
The organization running it would need to have sufficient credibility for the organizations using it to want to forego their own application processes. I think a random person starting it would have very low credibility. My company, which had run several dozen hiring rounds for many organizations had maybe 50% the credibility necessary. This seems like a hard bar.
I feel like a service that aspires to eventually be a common app could shift towards that incrementally by offering partly-vetted candidates. It's not a fully centralised common app, but gets customers/sign ups from orgs who just want access to another sour e kf high quality candidates
That might reduce some of the value prop to initial candidates at first, if the service doesn't have many confirmed clients yet, but I suspect that (1) quite a lot would apply anyway, even without confirmed buy in from orgs, if the pitch was done well, (2) there might be other ways to make it appealing, e.g. finding ways to offer some (automated?) feedback.
I think this is an interesting question! I think you're right to point out some of the factors that influence it including cause area, role type (and payment norms for them). I also think organizational cultural norms affect it quite heavily.
My guess is that if you had a large enough dataset and controlled for enough factors, salary would predict 'role leverage' quite well. But I don't expect it to be very useful when choosing between roles to apply for, because the correlation will be weak, your dataset is too small etc. Basically, there are too many predictors and too much noise for it to be very informative. I think you're better off just reading the descriptions or using other heuristics like cause area, job title etc if you're trying to filter quickly.
I think this is pretty cool. Good to see some relevant benchmarks collected in the same place, and I can see how this is handy as a communication tool.
From a quick skim I wasn't really sure how to interpret the main graph, and there didn't seem to be an explanation. In particular, the Y axis is a percentage, but a percentage of what? Some of the benchmarks are projected to reach 100% in a year, does that mean you project AI takeover in a year etc?
(Sharing less as 'please answer my question' and more as 'user feedback' -- if I'm confused by this, I imagine lots of people who know (even) less than me about AI (safety) will also be confused; though maybe they're not your target audience)
Interesting question. Sorry not to answer directly, but some questions that would help clarify your question:
What is "the geopolitical situation of the world", and how does one improve it? Why is that plausibly one of the top most useful/cost-effective things one can do with their time/money?
(And who is this EA of which you speak? I haven't met them. EA is a community and a question, not a single hierarchical organisation. Although if you think there is something that is important and neglected, the Forum is a handy platform to make the case!)
Cool, makes sense. To be clear, I think contacting representatives is helpful! I wasn't trying to question that.
I don't know anything about the Congress authorisation so will defer on that. I'll just say that if the legality is in dispute rather than unambiguous/settled, then using the word illegal might be counterproductive/polarising, whereas "unprecedented" seems unambiguously true.