Is there an OpenPhil source for “OpenPhil values a switch to an AI safety research career as +$20M in expected value”? It would help me a lot in addressing some concerns that have been brought up in local group discussions.
Update: I think he actually said “very good” AI safety researcher or something and I misremembered. The conversation was in January and before I knew anything much about the EAverse.
And there’s only what, 100 AI safety researchers in the world? Huge increase relative to the size of the field. But I think what they’ve actually said is the avg value is more like 3m and it could be 20m for someone spectacular
I think there’s some misunderstanding of the figure. The figure is an EV that’s probably benchmarked off of cash transfers (i.e. givedirectly). The logic being, if Openphil can recruit for an AI researcher for any less than $20 million USD, they have made more impact than donating it to GiveDirectly. Not that they intend to spend 20 million on each counterfactual career change.
It’s a bit surprising, but not THAT surprising. 50 more technical AI safety researchers would represent somewhere from a 50-100% increase in the total number, which could be a justifiable use of 10% of OpenPhil’s budget.
This is what I remember Devansh (whom I pinged about your comment; I’ll update when he replies) telling me when I first called him. I might have misremembered.
Great writeup!
Is there an OpenPhil source for “OpenPhil values a switch to an AI safety research career as +$20M in expected value”? It would help me a lot in addressing some concerns that have been brought up in local group discussions.
Update: I think he actually said “very good” AI safety researcher or something and I misremembered. The conversation was in January and before I knew anything much about the EAverse.
Thanks for the update!
I’m surprised by that figure. $1billion would only lead on 50 AI safety researchers and they seem to only have any $10 billion.
And there’s only what, 100 AI safety researchers in the world? Huge increase relative to the size of the field. But I think what they’ve actually said is the avg value is more like 3m and it could be 20m for someone spectacular
I think there’s some misunderstanding of the figure. The figure is an EV that’s probably benchmarked off of cash transfers (i.e. givedirectly). The logic being, if Openphil can recruit for an AI researcher for any less than $20 million USD, they have made more impact than donating it to GiveDirectly. Not that they intend to spend 20 million on each counterfactual career change.
It’s a bit surprising, but not THAT surprising. 50 more technical AI safety researchers would represent somewhere from a 50-100% increase in the total number, which could be a justifiable use of 10% of OpenPhil’s budget.
This is what I remember Devansh (whom I pinged about your comment; I’ll update when he replies) telling me when I first called him. I might have misremembered.