I think I considered it prior to the enumerated portion, where I’d said
“it would be valuable to see an analysis—perhaps there’s something like this on 80,000 Hours—of the types of roles where having an EA as opposed to a non-EA would significantly increase counterfactual impact.”
I agree that the “high autonomy and lack of ability to oversee or otherwise measure achievement of objectives” would be a reason that having EAs in the role might be better. The scope of jobs in this category is not clear.
There may have been an overcorrection and I still think ETG is a good default option—the scarcity of “EA jobs” and frequent posts lamenting the difficulty of getting jobs at EA orgs as an EA suggests that there is no shortage of EAs looking to fill roles for which close alignment is critical. Especially in the animal welfare EA space—everyone wants to be doing direct work and so little funding to enable excellent work. There may be more of an “aligned talent constraint” problem in AI Safety.
The scarcity of “EA jobs” and frequent posts lamenting the difficulty of getting jobs at EA orgs as an EA suggests that there is no shortage of EAs looking to fill roles for which close alignment is critical
I think this argument would be stronger if people were better at gauging their potential to go professional, but given that people often can’t do this, I expect that it makes sense for most people who are deciding between earn-to-give and direct work (and who aren’t pulling down crazy trader/lawyer/doctor money) to try making it professionally and to use earn to give as a backup option.
Even then, I honestly think more people should be aiming to find a job where they can work four days a week and volunteer one day. I expect that would be both more impactful and more fulfilling for most people.
The challenge is that strong EtG jobs with four-day workweeks can be hard to find, especially for early to early-mid career roles. Medicine is probably an exception, but in the US you have to make it through four years of med school after undergrad, then a grueling 3-7 year residency first. So you’d be accepting an extended period of ~ no impact.
Hiring a personal assistant for enough hours a week might be another option, though.
It’s an interesting idea. My concern is that dropping the fifth day could have a significantly greater than 20% impact on the person’s ability to give due to cultural expectations, actual value to the main employer, or the fact that a 20% pay cut would mean >20% drop in discretionary income for most people.
It certainly could work, although my intuition is that it would only be more effective than FT work under less common conditions (e.g., where the main job wasn’t as well compensated, where the volunteer work was particularly impactful).
Switching between more impactful and more remunerative work could also be a viable pattern for some to have a mix of well-paid and more impactful work. You see something vaguely like this in some circles where people will move into senior government positions when their team is in power, then decamp for the private sector when it is not. But there’s no inherent reason someone couldn’t switch every few years for other reasons.
I think I considered it prior to the enumerated portion, where I’d said
“it would be valuable to see an analysis—perhaps there’s something like this on 80,000 Hours—of the types of roles where having an EA as opposed to a non-EA would significantly increase counterfactual impact.”
I agree that the “high autonomy and lack of ability to oversee or otherwise measure achievement of objectives” would be a reason that having EAs in the role might be better. The scope of jobs in this category is not clear.
There may have been an overcorrection and I still think ETG is a good default option—the scarcity of “EA jobs” and frequent posts lamenting the difficulty of getting jobs at EA orgs as an EA suggests that there is no shortage of EAs looking to fill roles for which close alignment is critical. Especially in the animal welfare EA space—everyone wants to be doing direct work and so little funding to enable excellent work. There may be more of an “aligned talent constraint” problem in AI Safety.
I think this argument would be stronger if people were better at gauging their potential to go professional, but given that people often can’t do this, I expect that it makes sense for most people who are deciding between earn-to-give and direct work (and who aren’t pulling down crazy trader/lawyer/doctor money) to try making it professionally and to use earn to give as a backup option.
Even then, I honestly think more people should be aiming to find a job where they can work four days a week and volunteer one day. I expect that would be both more impactful and more fulfilling for most people.
The challenge is that strong EtG jobs with four-day workweeks can be hard to find, especially for early to early-mid career roles. Medicine is probably an exception, but in the US you have to make it through four years of med school after undergrad, then a grueling 3-7 year residency first. So you’d be accepting an extended period of ~ no impact.
Hiring a personal assistant for enough hours a week might be another option, though.
The PA idea is interesting.
My point was that working four days and volunteering one day, instead of donating, may be more effective for most people.
It’s an interesting idea. My concern is that dropping the fifth day could have a significantly greater than 20% impact on the person’s ability to give due to cultural expectations, actual value to the main employer, or the fact that a 20% pay cut would mean >20% drop in discretionary income for most people.
It certainly could work, although my intuition is that it would only be more effective than FT work under less common conditions (e.g., where the main job wasn’t as well compensated, where the volunteer work was particularly impactful).
Switching between more impactful and more remunerative work could also be a viable pattern for some to have a mix of well-paid and more impactful work. You see something vaguely like this in some circles where people will move into senior government positions when their team is in power, then decamp for the private sector when it is not. But there’s no inherent reason someone couldn’t switch every few years for other reasons.