I agree that was pretty terrible behavior, but there are lots of anti-employee things an organization could do which are orthogonal (especially if you know this going in, which OpenAI employees previously didnāt but weāre talking about new ones here) to whether the work is impactful. There are lots of hard lines that seem like they would make sense, but Iām not in favor of them: at some point there will be a job worth listing where it really is very impactful despite serious downsides.
For example, I think good employers pay you enough for a reasonably comfortable life, but if, say, some key government role is extremely poorly paid it may still make sense to take it if you have savings youāre willing to spend down to support yourself.
Or, I think graduate school is often pretty bad for people, where PIs have far more power than corporate world bosses, but while you should certainly think hard about this before going to grad school itās not determinative.
No argument from me that itās sometimes worth it to take low paying or miserable jobs. But low pay isnāt a surprise fact you learn years into working for a company, itās written right on the tin[1]. The issue for me isnāt that OpenAI paid undermarket rates, itās that it lied about material facts of the job. You could put up a warning that OpenAI equity is ephemeral, but the bigger issue is that OpenAI canāt be trusted to hold to any deal.
the bigger issue is that OpenAI canāt be trusted to hold to any deal
I agree thatās a big issue and itās definitely a mark against it, but I donāt think that should firmly rule out working there or listing it as a place EAs might consider working.
I donāt think the dishonesty entirely rules out working at OpenAI. Whether or not OpenAI safety positions should be on the 80k job board depends on the exact mission of the job board. I have my models, but let me ask you: who is it you think will have their plans changed for the better by seeing OpenAI safety positions[1] on 80kās board?
Iām excluding IS positions from this question because it seems possible someone skilled in IS would not think to apply to OpenAI. I donāt see how anyone qualified for OpenAI safety positions could need 80k to inform them the positions exist.
I donāt object to dropping OpenAI safety positions from the 80k job board on the grounds that the people who would be highly impactful in those roles donāt need the job board to learn about them, especially when combined with the other factors weāve been discussing.
As I tried to communicate in my previous comment, Iām not convinced there is anyone who āwill have their plans changed for the better by seeing OpenAI safety positions on 80kās boardā, and am not arguing for including them on the board.
EDIT: after a bit of offline messaging I realize I misunderstood Elizabeth; I thought the parent comment was pushing me to answer the question posed in the great grandcomment but actually it was accepting my request to bring this up a level of generality and not be specific to OpenAI. Sorry!
I think this mostly comes down to a disagreement over how sophisticated we think job board participants are, and Iād change my view on this if it turned out that a lot of people reading the board are new-to-EA folks who donāt pay much attention to disclaimers and interpret listing a role as saying āsomeone who takes this role will have a large positive impact in expectationā.
If there did turn out to be a lot of people in that category Iād recommend splitting the board into a visible-by-default section with jobs where conditional on getting the role youāll have high positive impact in expectation (Iād biasedly put the NAOās current openings in this category) and a you-need-to-click-show-more section with jobs where you need to think carefully about whether the combination of you and the role is a good one.
I agree that was pretty terrible behavior, but there are lots of anti-employee things an organization could do which are orthogonal (especially if you know this going in, which OpenAI employees previously didnāt but weāre talking about new ones here) to whether the work is impactful. There are lots of hard lines that seem like they would make sense, but Iām not in favor of them: at some point there will be a job worth listing where it really is very impactful despite serious downsides.
For example, I think good employers pay you enough for a reasonably comfortable life, but if, say, some key government role is extremely poorly paid it may still make sense to take it if you have savings youāre willing to spend down to support yourself.
Or, I think graduate school is often pretty bad for people, where PIs have far more power than corporate world bosses, but while you should certainly think hard about this before going to grad school itās not determinative.
No argument from me that itās sometimes worth it to take low paying or miserable jobs. But low pay isnāt a surprise fact you learn years into working for a company, itās written right on the tin[1]. The issue for me isnāt that OpenAI paid undermarket rates, itās that it lied about material facts of the job. You could put up a warning that OpenAI equity is ephemeral, but the bigger issue is that OpenAI canāt be trusted to hold to any deal.
The power PIs hold can be a surprise, and Iām disappointed 80kās article on PhDs doesnāt cover that issue.
I agree thatās a big issue and itās definitely a mark against it, but I donāt think that should firmly rule out working there or listing it as a place EAs might consider working.
I donāt think the dishonesty entirely rules out working at OpenAI. Whether or not OpenAI safety positions should be on the 80k job board depends on the exact mission of the job board. I have my models, but let me ask you: who is it you think will have their plans changed for the better by seeing OpenAI safety positions[1] on 80kās board?
Iām excluding IS positions from this question because it seems possible someone skilled in IS would not think to apply to OpenAI. I donāt see how anyone qualified for OpenAI safety positions could need 80k to inform them the positions exist.
I donāt object to dropping OpenAI safety positions from the 80k job board on the grounds that the people who would be highly impactful in those roles donāt need the job board to learn about them, especially when combined with the other factors weāve been discussing.
In this subthread Iām pushing back on your broader āI think a job board shouldnāt host companies that have taken already-earned compensation hostageā.
I still think the question of āwho is the job board aimed at?ā is relevant here, and would like to hear your answer.
As I tried to communicate in my previous comment, Iām not convinced there is anyone who āwill have their plans changed for the better by seeing OpenAI safety positions on 80kās boardā, and am not arguing for including them on the board.
EDIT: after a bit of offline messaging I realize I misunderstood Elizabeth; I thought the parent comment was pushing me to answer the question posed in the great grandcomment but actually it was accepting my request to bring this up a level of generality and not be specific to OpenAI. Sorry!
I think the board should generally list jobs that, under some combinations of values and world models that the job board runners think are plausible, are plausibly one of the highest impact opportunities for the right person. I think in cases like working in OpenAIās safety roles where anyone who is the āright personā almost certainly already knows about the role, thereās not much value in listing it but also not much harm.
I think this mostly comes down to a disagreement over how sophisticated we think job board participants are, and Iād change my view on this if it turned out that a lot of people reading the board are new-to-EA folks who donāt pay much attention to disclaimers and interpret listing a role as saying āsomeone who takes this role will have a large positive impact in expectationā.
If there did turn out to be a lot of people in that category Iād recommend splitting the board into a visible-by-default section with jobs where conditional on getting the role youāll have high positive impact in expectation (Iād biasedly put the NAOās current openings in this category) and a you-need-to-click-show-more section with jobs where you need to think carefully about whether the combination of you and the role is a good one.