Thanks for the detailed reply. I completely understand the felt need to seize on windows of opportunity to contribute to AI Safety—I myself have changed my focus somewhat radically over the past 12 months.
I remain skeptical on a few of the points you mention, in descending order of importance to your argument (correct me if I’m wrong):
“ERA’s ex-AI-Fellows have a stronger track record”
I believe we are dealing with confounding factors here. Most importantly, AI Fellows were (if I recall correctly) significantly more senior on average than other fellows. Some had multiple years of work experience. Naturally, I would expect them to score higher on your metric of “engaging in AI Safety projects” (which we could also debate how good of a metric it is). [The problem here I suspect is the uneven recruitment across cause areas, which limits comparability.] There were also simply a lot more of them (since you mention absolute numbers).
I would also think that there have been a lot more AI opportunities opening up compared to e.g. nuclear or climate in the last year, so it shouldn’t surprise us if more Fellows found work and/or funding more easily. (This is somewhat balanced out by the high influx of talent into the space.)
Don’t get me wrong: I am incredibly proud of what the Fellows I managed have gone on to do, and helping some of them find roles after the Fellowship may have easily been the most impactful thing I’ve done during my time at ERA. I just don’t think it’s a solid argument in the context in which you bring it up.
“The infrastructure is here”
This strikes me as a weird argument at least. First of all, the infrastructure (Leverhulme etc.) has long been there (and AFAIK, the Meridian Office has always been the home of CERI/ERA), so is this a realisation you only came to now? Also: If “the infrastructure is here” is an argument, would the conclusion “you should focus on a broader set of risks because CSER is a good partner nearby” seem right to you?
“It doesn’t diminish the importance of other x-risks or GCR research areas”
It may not be what you intended, but there is something interesting about an organisation that used to be called the “Existential Risk Alliance” pivot like this. Would I be right in assuming we can expect a new ToC alongside the change in scope? (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9tG7daTLzyxArfQev/era-s-theory-of-change)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I completely understand the felt need to seize on windows of opportunity to contribute to AI Safety—I myself have changed my focus somewhat radically over the past 12 months.
I remain skeptical on a few of the points you mention, in descending order of importance to your argument (correct me if I’m wrong):
“ERA’s ex-AI-Fellows have a stronger track record” I believe we are dealing with confounding factors here. Most importantly, AI Fellows were (if I recall correctly) significantly more senior on average than other fellows. Some had multiple years of work experience. Naturally, I would expect them to score higher on your metric of “engaging in AI Safety projects” (which we could also debate how good of a metric it is). [The problem here I suspect is the uneven recruitment across cause areas, which limits comparability.] There were also simply a lot more of them (since you mention absolute numbers). I would also think that there have been a lot more AI opportunities opening up compared to e.g. nuclear or climate in the last year, so it shouldn’t surprise us if more Fellows found work and/or funding more easily. (This is somewhat balanced out by the high influx of talent into the space.) Don’t get me wrong: I am incredibly proud of what the Fellows I managed have gone on to do, and helping some of them find roles after the Fellowship may have easily been the most impactful thing I’ve done during my time at ERA. I just don’t think it’s a solid argument in the context in which you bring it up.
“The infrastructure is here” This strikes me as a weird argument at least. First of all, the infrastructure (Leverhulme etc.) has long been there (and AFAIK, the Meridian Office has always been the home of CERI/ERA), so is this a realisation you only came to now? Also: If “the infrastructure is here” is an argument, would the conclusion “you should focus on a broader set of risks because CSER is a good partner nearby” seem right to you?
“It doesn’t diminish the importance of other x-risks or GCR research areas” It may not be what you intended, but there is something interesting about an organisation that used to be called the “Existential Risk Alliance” pivot like this. Would I be right in assuming we can expect a new ToC alongside the change in scope? (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9tG7daTLzyxArfQev/era-s-theory-of-change)