I think that this number actually does change things slightly. I still maintain that we need more opportunities, but it's not quite as desperate as I thought.
I think that the Generator residency is a fantastic first step and I'm glad that opportunities are being created for the people who don't want to do pure research or policy but we need to consider opportunities for people who don't have the luxury of moving to California for 6-12 weeks, who already have decades of experience but who also wholeheartedly embrace the AI safety context and want to contribute.
I heard (no proof to back this up) that there were 6,000 applications for the Generator residency. If that many people were actually able to take the opportunity to participate, how many more excellent candidates would like to gain those skills but simply can't do a residential program due to responsibilities (family, jobs, mortgage, etc).
While I agree that AI safety is highly contextual, how much progress will we make if the barrier to entry is so high that it requires months to years of volunteer time and networking, making it impossible for many skilled people to get in?
Thank you so much for writing this. I am in a similar boat - I've done 4 BlueDot courses, volunteered at EAG London and will be volunteering at EAG NY and SF. I have technical experience, plus program and event management experience and want to get into an operations role. The advice to "write alot!" or "code alot!" or "just apply!" does no favours to people like me who aren't great writers or coders.
I'm actually currently working on a proposal + prototype for something that would help to solve this problem. I'm wondering if you would be willing to review it with me when I'm done and give me some feedback?
Thanks! I appreciate the update!
I think that this number actually does change things slightly. I still maintain that we need more opportunities, but it's not quite as desperate as I thought.
I think that the Generator residency is a fantastic first step and I'm glad that opportunities are being created for the people who don't want to do pure research or policy but we need to consider opportunities for people who don't have the luxury of moving to California for 6-12 weeks, who already have decades of experience but who also wholeheartedly embrace the AI safety context and want to contribute.
I heard (no proof to back this up) that there were 6,000 applications for the Generator residency. If that many people were actually able to take the opportunity to participate, how many more excellent candidates would like to gain those skills but simply can't do a residential program due to responsibilities (family, jobs, mortgage, etc).
While I agree that AI safety is highly contextual, how much progress will we make if the barrier to entry is so high that it requires months to years of volunteer time and networking, making it impossible for many skilled people to get in?
Emily,
Thank you so much for writing this. I am in a similar boat - I've done 4 BlueDot courses, volunteered at EAG London and will be volunteering at EAG NY and SF. I have technical experience, plus program and event management experience and want to get into an operations role. The advice to "write alot!" or "code alot!" or "just apply!" does no favours to people like me who aren't great writers or coders.
I'm actually currently working on a proposal + prototype for something that would help to solve this problem. I'm wondering if you would be willing to review it with me when I'm done and give me some feedback?