I’d love to know how ProbablyGood fits into this! Would be helpful for my organising of EA Cambridge, as we currently refer people to job boards depending on their interests
Thanks for the question! We’re excited to collaborate on this with CEA, as well as with other orgs who asked to source roles from our job board.
Based on our current understanding, here’s how we’re thinking of what to recommend:
For people interested in AI safety & policy: 80K has the clearest focus on roles within this cause area.
For people interested in roles where there’s more confidence in the expected impact: CEA’s board or the highlighted orgs filter on our board seem most relevant (~20% of the roles on our board fall under this filter, and the Opportunities Board includes most of those).
For people interested in a range of impactful roles across cause areas: Our (Probably Good’s) board has the widest coverage.
Thanks! This is super helpful. If the Opportunities Board has most of the part and full-time roles on 80k and PG’s highlighted, then I struggle to imagine why I would recommend anything besides the Opportunity board, unless someone wanted to know about the opportunities that are less likely to be impactful by EA lights.
I suppose one reason I might recommend anything else, is that 80k’s advisor bot integrates with the job board. Would be curious to hear from @Conor Barnes 🔶 and @Probably Good if I’m missing anything here.
Recommending lots of boards creates some friction in our 1-1s, but I may continue to recommend all 3 boards to most/​all people if there are other reasons to do this.
Good question! I agree with Probably Good’s view of the trifecta between us (and I’d also highlight Animal Advocacy Careers for their animal welfare focus!).
I’d say that the recommendation comes down to the user’s focus. If the job seeker wants to find the best opportunities in light of expecting transformative AI in the coming years, the 80,000 Hours job board selects roles in light of that question, including roles for building career capital. If the job seeker is ambivalent on timelines to transformative AI, other boards will have more variety for them.
As to non-curatorial differences:
We all have different filters in light of our audiences’ needs, and in general I expect the experience to differ slightly between each board.
The team behind our advisor bot is also pushing hard to make it very useful to job seekers, and I have some exciting features planned for the end of the year that leverage 80k’s capacity. So you might actually see growing variance between the boards!
I’m sorry it’s frictive to recommend many boards, but I will say I’m also quite glad that we have multiple strong boards sharing excellent roles based on our different philosophies!
Happy to clarify: What you’re missing is that there are tons of impactful roles—and people who are interested in them—that aren’t part of our highlighted roles. It’s perfectly fine to focus on the subset of roles where there’s more confidence in the impact (though never certainty), which is why we’ve set up a filter for it. But we’ve designed our board primarily for people who are considering impactful roles both inside and outside that subset, which we expect to be the right call for many (when considering factors like fit, absorbency, counterfactual impact, etc.).
So we think that a potential way to view this is:
For someone who seems primarily interested in AI safety & policy, you can recommend 80K.
For someone who seems primarily interested in more traditional EA roles, you can recommend the Opportunities Board (or the highlighted filter on our board).
For someone who seems interested in a wider range of impactful roles across cause areas, you can recommend the Probably Good board.
There are also smaller differences, such as that 80K and us offer custom email alerts and are stricter about removing expired roles, but I expect these differences will narrow as the Opportunities Board develops, and the above seems like a useful heuristic.
I’d love to know how ProbablyGood fits into this! Would be helpful for my organising of EA Cambridge, as we currently refer people to job boards depending on their interests
Thanks for the question! We’re excited to collaborate on this with CEA, as well as with other orgs who asked to source roles from our job board.
Based on our current understanding, here’s how we’re thinking of what to recommend:
For people interested in AI safety & policy: 80K has the clearest focus on roles within this cause area.
For people interested in roles where there’s more confidence in the expected impact: CEA’s board or the highlighted orgs filter on our board seem most relevant (~20% of the roles on our board fall under this filter, and the Opportunities Board includes most of those).
For people interested in a range of impactful roles across cause areas: Our (Probably Good’s) board has the widest coverage.
Thanks! This is super helpful. If the Opportunities Board has most of the part and full-time roles on 80k and PG’s highlighted, then I struggle to imagine why I would recommend anything besides the Opportunity board, unless someone wanted to know about the opportunities that are less likely to be impactful by EA lights.
I suppose one reason I might recommend anything else, is that 80k’s advisor bot integrates with the job board. Would be curious to hear from @Conor Barnes 🔶 and @Probably Good if I’m missing anything here.
Recommending lots of boards creates some friction in our 1-1s, but I may continue to recommend all 3 boards to most/​all people if there are other reasons to do this.
Hi Jian,
Good question! I agree with Probably Good’s view of the trifecta between us (and I’d also highlight Animal Advocacy Careers for their animal welfare focus!).
I’d say that the recommendation comes down to the user’s focus. If the job seeker wants to find the best opportunities in light of expecting transformative AI in the coming years, the 80,000 Hours job board selects roles in light of that question, including roles for building career capital. If the job seeker is ambivalent on timelines to transformative AI, other boards will have more variety for them.
As to non-curatorial differences:
We all have different filters in light of our audiences’ needs, and in general I expect the experience to differ slightly between each board.
The team behind our advisor bot is also pushing hard to make it very useful to job seekers, and I have some exciting features planned for the end of the year that leverage 80k’s capacity. So you might actually see growing variance between the boards!
I’m sorry it’s frictive to recommend many boards, but I will say I’m also quite glad that we have multiple strong boards sharing excellent roles based on our different philosophies!
Happy to clarify: What you’re missing is that there are tons of impactful roles—and people who are interested in them—that aren’t part of our highlighted roles. It’s perfectly fine to focus on the subset of roles where there’s more confidence in the impact (though never certainty), which is why we’ve set up a filter for it. But we’ve designed our board primarily for people who are considering impactful roles both inside and outside that subset, which we expect to be the right call for many (when considering factors like fit, absorbency, counterfactual impact, etc.).
So we think that a potential way to view this is:
For someone who seems primarily interested in AI safety & policy, you can recommend 80K.
For someone who seems primarily interested in more traditional EA roles, you can recommend the Opportunities Board (or the highlighted filter on our board).
For someone who seems interested in a wider range of impactful roles across cause areas, you can recommend the Probably Good board.
There are also smaller differences, such as that 80K and us offer custom email alerts and are stricter about removing expired roles, but I expect these differences will narrow as the Opportunities Board develops, and the above seems like a useful heuristic.