I think this is true.

One of the biggest mistakes a field can make is to assume that progress depends mainly on more researchers. In reality, many fields stall because they lack people who can build institutions, connect domains, execute under uncertainty, and turn ideas into durable structures.

AI safety is especially vulnerable to this because research is legible. It has status, career signals, and a clearer identity. Generalist talent is harder to classify, so it is often undervalued even when it may be the difference between insight and real-world impact.

And at this stage, AI safety is clearly no longer just a research problem. It is also a governance problem, an implementation problem, a standards problem, a coordination problem, and in some cases a political problem.

If a field produces strong papers but too few people who can build teams, run programs, shape institutions, and move ideas into practice, it will underperform even if the research is good.

So yes, I think the missing ladder for high-agency generalists is real, and probably more important than many people still admit.