wild, sobering and inspiring. I especially appreciate that you grounded your piece by starting with 2 of the lives lost, good reminder of the stakes behind abstract policy and corp decisions... when high-stakes incentives push for compliance the desire to preserve standing and influence almost always outcompetes abstract moral commitment. Thank you for your courage and transparency.
Very impressive. GD nails the essentials of good comms / messaging while sticking to evidence and transparency. Something many of us aspire to replicate / scale. Well done and looking forward to seeing the impact this unlocks!
Posts like this remind me how important it is to carefully consider both human health and animal welfare when thinking about the future of protein and how nuanced this is. We need to give space for these convos. I truly appreciated your convo with Dwarkesh.. ty for keeping these essential issues front and center in such a thoughtful and easy to follow way
I wanted to share my perspective as someone you personally reached out to about applying for a role. I invested several days in the process, preparing thoroughly and rearranging significant parts of my life, including obligations to my children, family and day job, because I was genuinely excited by the opportunity and your encouragement.
After being told I was a strong, referred candidate, I received an automated rejection email less than 48 hours after submitting my application. While I understand that rejection can be an inevitable part of the process, I found it extremely disappointing that my follow-up request for any feedback or context went unanswered. I reached out to you 3 times.
For candidates investing substantial time and hope, a lack of basic communication and transparency is discouraging, especially in a sector that values impact and integrity. I hope you’ll consider your own role into recruitment processes and candidate experiences can be improved going forward.
I’ve noticed that candidate-review sites (e.g. Glassdoor) show a surprisingly high share of negative interview feedback for several EA orgs (GiveWell sits around ~40 % “negative” responses), which is higher than what you typically see for reputable private employers (Google, BCG, etc.). My own interviews at these Fortune 100 firms have been demanding but still felt transparent and fair, whereas many reviewers describe EA hiring as opaque:
Is the data misleading, or are EA orgs genuinely struggling to offer a good candidate experience?
If the latter, what are the main frictions (limited HR capacity, specific test exercises, risk averse calibration)?
Which parts of the process could be made more transparent (timelines, criteria, feedback) without compromising the rigor EA values?
Ultimately, how can we make sure EA organizations remain talent magnets rather than inadvertently deterring people who are otherwise keen on high-impact careers?
Curious to hear perspectives from recruiters and anyone who has tried to improve this within their org. Thank you for doing this!
wild, sobering and inspiring. I especially appreciate that you grounded your piece by starting with 2 of the lives lost, good reminder of the stakes behind abstract policy and corp decisions... when high-stakes incentives push for compliance the desire to preserve standing and influence almost always outcompetes abstract moral commitment. Thank you for your courage and transparency.
Very impressive. GD nails the essentials of good comms / messaging while sticking to evidence and transparency. Something many of us aspire to replicate / scale. Well done and looking forward to seeing the impact this unlocks!
Posts like this remind me how important it is to carefully consider both human health and animal welfare when thinking about the future of protein and how nuanced this is. We need to give space for these convos. I truly appreciated your convo with Dwarkesh.. ty for keeping these essential issues front and center in such a thoughtful and easy to follow way
I wanted to share my perspective as someone you personally reached out to about applying for a role. I invested several days in the process, preparing thoroughly and rearranging significant parts of my life, including obligations to my children, family and day job, because I was genuinely excited by the opportunity and your encouragement.
After being told I was a strong, referred candidate, I received an automated rejection email less than 48 hours after submitting my application. While I understand that rejection can be an inevitable part of the process, I found it extremely disappointing that my follow-up request for any feedback or context went unanswered. I reached out to you 3 times.
For candidates investing substantial time and hope, a lack of basic communication and transparency is discouraging, especially in a sector that values impact and integrity. I hope you’ll consider your own role into recruitment processes and candidate experiences can be improved going forward.
I’ve noticed that candidate-review sites (e.g. Glassdoor) show a surprisingly high share of negative interview feedback for several EA orgs (GiveWell sits around ~40 % “negative” responses), which is higher than what you typically see for reputable private employers (Google, BCG, etc.). My own interviews at these Fortune 100 firms have been demanding but still felt transparent and fair, whereas many reviewers describe EA hiring as opaque:
Curious to hear perspectives from recruiters and anyone who has tried to improve this within their org. Thank you for doing this!