This is an exciting opportunity. I'm especially glad to see more emphasis on governance and practical responses alongside foundational research. Even if there's uncertainty about digital minds today, thinking through institutional, legal, and ethical frameworks in advance seems like a valuable investment. Looking forward to seeing the range of proposals this RFP attracts.
This is very relatable, especially the cycle of committing to a high-impact direction, later doubting it, and then restarting the search for “the right thing.” One thing that stands out is how much smoother things became when you had a tight, consistent collaborator. That suggests the bottleneck may not be only what you work on, but how you work coordination, feedback loops, and shared epistemics can reduce the constant re-evaluation loop. It might be worth treating “stable collaboration + execution environment” as a first-order priority, not a secondary benefit. For many people, that alone increases impact more reliably than repeatedly switching between cause areas. Appreciate the honesty in this, this pattern is likely more common than it looks from the outside.
I really like the core idea here: if you see a gap that matters, don't assume it has to be filled by a large organization. Some of the most impactful initiatives often start with a small team that's deeply focused on solving one problem well. Your point about AI lowering the barrier to building communities, educational resources, and event infrastructure is especially interesting. It feels like this is creating opportunities for people to test ideas quickly, learn from real users, and iterate rather than waiting for institutional support.
I'm curious which of these areas you think has the biggest unmet need today. If someone had a small team and six months to work on just one of these ideas, where do you think they'd create the most value?
I think this is a useful frame. When discussing AI and cybersecurity, we're often faced with the question of whether AI benefits attackers more than defenders (or vice versa), but perhaps the more interesting question is who actually receives the defensive benefits. Even if defensive AI advances more quickly than offensive AI, many vulnerable targets, small organizations, open-source maintainers, local governments, and individuals, may not have access to the same tools, expertise, or response capacity. In that world, the overall security may improve while the risk is more concentrated with weaker actors. This suggests from an impact standpoint that deploying defensive capabilities may be as important as upgrading them. But a world where only a few institutions can effectively defend themselves may still be a much riskier world overall. The “dual-use gap” is an appealing notion because it shifts the attention from average outcomes to the differential distribution of protection and risk.
I like this setup because it shows that not all problems are difficult for the same reason. Some problems are overlooked. Some problems are misdiagnosed. Some problems generate new problems as we try to solve them.
The categories that come most immediately to mind for me are Sleeping Horror, Hated Equilibrium, and Middle Court Shot, as many important global issues seem to fit these patterns.
It is helpful to inquire not only, “How great is the problem?” but also “What sort of problem is it?” That knowledge may help us choose better solutions.”
I would concentrate on comparative advantage and replaceability.
If you are particularly suited to research and can find truly neglected problems, your direct contribution may be harder to replace than your donations. Funding is important, but you can always find another donor more easily than a researcher with your unique skills and interests.
However, if the higher-paying career lets you reliably give large amounts over decades, that could add up to a lot of impact, especially in highly effective cause areas.
Comparing your impact to the cost of funding another PhD student may be a less useful perspective to adopt.
This is an exciting opportunity. I'm especially glad to see more emphasis on governance and practical responses alongside foundational research. Even if there's uncertainty about digital minds today, thinking through institutional, legal, and ethical frameworks in advance seems like a valuable investment. Looking forward to seeing the range of proposals this RFP attracts.
This is very relatable, especially the cycle of committing to a high-impact direction, later doubting it, and then restarting the search for “the right thing.”
One thing that stands out is how much smoother things became when you had a tight, consistent collaborator. That suggests the bottleneck may not be only what you work on, but how you work coordination, feedback loops, and shared epistemics can reduce the constant re-evaluation loop.
It might be worth treating “stable collaboration + execution environment” as a first-order priority, not a secondary benefit. For many people, that alone increases impact more reliably than repeatedly switching between cause areas.
Appreciate the honesty in this, this pattern is likely more common than it looks from the outside.
I really like the core idea here: if you see a gap that matters, don't assume it has to be filled by a large organization. Some of the most impactful initiatives often start with a small team that's deeply focused on solving one problem well.
Your point about AI lowering the barrier to building communities, educational resources, and event infrastructure is especially interesting. It feels like this is creating opportunities for people to test ideas quickly, learn from real users, and iterate rather than waiting for institutional support.
I'm curious which of these areas you think has the biggest unmet need today. If someone had a small team and six months to work on just one of these ideas, where do you think they'd create the most value?
I think this is a useful frame. When discussing AI and cybersecurity, we're often faced with the question of whether AI benefits attackers more than defenders (or vice versa), but perhaps the more interesting question is who actually receives the defensive benefits.
Even if defensive AI advances more quickly than offensive AI, many vulnerable targets, small organizations, open-source maintainers, local governments, and individuals, may not have access to the same tools, expertise, or response capacity. In that world, the overall security may improve while the risk is more concentrated with weaker actors.
This suggests from an impact standpoint that deploying defensive capabilities may be as important as upgrading them. But a world where only a few institutions can effectively defend themselves may still be a much riskier world overall.
The “dual-use gap” is an appealing notion because it shifts the attention from average outcomes to the differential distribution of protection and risk.
I like this setup because it shows that not all problems are difficult for the same reason. Some problems are overlooked. Some problems are misdiagnosed. Some problems generate new problems as we try to solve them.
The categories that come most immediately to mind for me are Sleeping Horror, Hated Equilibrium, and Middle Court Shot, as many important global issues seem to fit these patterns.
It is helpful to inquire not only, “How great is the problem?” but also “What sort of problem is it?” That knowledge may help us choose better solutions.”
I would concentrate on comparative advantage and replaceability.
If you are particularly suited to research and can find truly neglected problems, your direct contribution may be harder to replace than your donations. Funding is important, but you can always find another donor more easily than a researcher with your unique skills and interests.
However, if the higher-paying career lets you reliably give large amounts over decades, that could add up to a lot of impact, especially in highly effective cause areas.
Comparing your impact to the cost of funding another PhD student may be a less useful perspective to adopt.