What do you think are some of the main differences between your guide/advice and 80k’s?
I realise that to some extent, merely covering similar ideas with a slightly different framing and emphasis can add value because variations in these things land more or less well with different people.
But I’m wondering about more substantive differences. E.g. this page implies that you either don’t endorse longtermism or endorse it less strongly than 80k, and my impression from your content is that you do tend to highlight a broader range of opportunities, including a much more prominent emphasis on global health (and climate change?).
Are then any other differences that jump to mind? E.g. like how Holden Karnofsky’s “aptitudes” post was quite a different take to 80k’s more ‘cause prio first’ approach.
(A more provocative framing of this qu: imagine that Probably Good and 80k both have an article on the same topic. Without reading either, if I do endorse longtermism, is there any reason why (or person for who) the Probably Good article is likely to be more useful?)
80K and Probably Good have the same goal: get more people into impactful careers. Where we differ is mostly in emphasis and approach.
At a high level Probably Good differs in a few significant ways:
While 80K focuses more on longtermism, x-risk, and AI risk, we aim to provide impact-focused career advice for people in a wide range of high-impact careers, across many cause areas (more cause areas still coming :)).
Correspondingly, we aim to give (relatively) more weight to worldview diversification, moral uncertainty, and epistemic uncertainty. This leads us to focus more on information and tools for making career decisions rather than final conclusions.
Finally, as you noted—we have a different perspective and tone even when discussing the same issues.
So folks who already strongly endorse longtermism (and even more so 80K’s top priority paths) are most likely to find that 80K already pretty much fulfills their needs (and we tend to direct people towards them—not because we don’t also support the relevant cause areas, but because they’ve specialized in those areas more).
What do you think are some of the main differences between your guide/advice and 80k’s?
I realise that to some extent, merely covering similar ideas with a slightly different framing and emphasis can add value because variations in these things land more or less well with different people.
But I’m wondering about more substantive differences. E.g. this page implies that you either don’t endorse longtermism or endorse it less strongly than 80k, and my impression from your content is that you do tend to highlight a broader range of opportunities, including a much more prominent emphasis on global health (and climate change?).
Are then any other differences that jump to mind? E.g. like how Holden Karnofsky’s “aptitudes” post was quite a different take to 80k’s more ‘cause prio first’ approach.
(A more provocative framing of this qu: imagine that Probably Good and 80k both have an article on the same topic. Without reading either, if I do endorse longtermism, is there any reason why (or person for who) the Probably Good article is likely to be more useful?)
Thanks!
Hey Jamie, thanks for the comment!
80K and Probably Good have the same goal: get more people into impactful careers. Where we differ is mostly in emphasis and approach.
At a high level Probably Good differs in a few significant ways:
While 80K focuses more on longtermism, x-risk, and AI risk, we aim to provide impact-focused career advice for people in a wide range of high-impact careers, across many cause areas (more cause areas still coming :)).
Correspondingly, we aim to give (relatively) more weight to worldview diversification, moral uncertainty, and epistemic uncertainty. This leads us to focus more on information and tools for making career decisions rather than final conclusions.
Finally, as you noted—we have a different perspective and tone even when discussing the same issues.
So folks who already strongly endorse longtermism (and even more so 80K’s top priority paths) are most likely to find that 80K already pretty much fulfills their needs (and we tend to direct people towards them—not because we don’t also support the relevant cause areas, but because they’ve specialized in those areas more).