I would note a consideration in terms of impact. Orgs that are larger, have more resources for better perks, can offer higher pay, and are more prestigious are going to be able to attract stronger applicants, all else being equal. Consequently, your impact is going to be the delta between the world with you in that position in the org and that of the person who would occupy that position. Consequently, your expected impact might be small or negative (or it could be high if you are exceptional at it relative to the second best option). I think EAs in general tend to conflate the value that is actualized by an org’s operation with their counterfactual impact by taking a job at such an org.
I understand the concerns with small, new, organizations with less funding. Surely in some circumstances this can be a reflection of the merits of the organization, but in some circumstances, there is a promising project that needs help getting off the ground. The counterfactual person who might occupy the position in question for that org might not exist at all or could be much less competent. If you have reason to believe an org is significantly underrated in terms of funding access, prestige, etc., helping in early stages might be the highest EV choice.
This also is probably more of a hits-based approach than joining an established, funded, prestigious org. If you join that org, you will have a high probably of seeing legible impact and feel good about being a part of it, although it is hard to surmise what difference you made versus the other person they would have counterfactually hired. On the other hand, joining a new organization that you think has a promising theory of change is much less likely to yield a legibly impactful outcome. Even if there is a sound theory, there are just a lot of variables that could prevent a new org from being impactful. On the other hand, if such an org doessucceed and scales, your dedicated and competent support of the org may actually have been the but-for cause of its success, implying high utility gains. If you are talented, hardworking, bright, good at networking, organized, etc. and are good at assessing areas that might be undervalued, I think the highest impact work would be at such underrated orgs. I definitely think this approach is less likely to lead to more happy or secure lives, however.
Agreed; but I’d also add that I think in any role, the default assumption is that if you’re selected for the job, you’re likely to be at least somewhat better than the next best candidate. Applying for the job is a great way to find this out, and if you’re uncertain about the counterfactual, you can also be open with the team about this and ask them how much they prefer you to the next best candidate – I’ve done this before and got replies that I think are honest and open. (Though some care is needed with this reasoning: if everyone did this, they’d just end up down at the best candidate who doesn’t think to ask this.)
But yeah agree that the gap between you and the next best candidate is likely to be bigger for a less conventionally-appealing project.
(Additional musing this made me think of: there’s also the consideration that the next-best candidate also has a counterfactual, and if they’re aligned will probably themselves end up doing something else impactful if they don’t take this job. A bit of a rabbit hole, but I think can still be useful: e.g. you could consider whether you seem more or less dedicated to a high-impact career than the typical applicant for the job. Or could ask the hiring manager whether they had promising community-external candidates, and whether they think you being aligned adds a lot to how well you’ll do in the role.)
Additional musing this made me think of: there’s also the consideration that the next-best candidate also has a counterfactual, and if they’re aligned will probably themselves end up doing something else impactful if they don’t take this job
Agreed, if you or other people want to read about issues with naive counterfactuals, I briefly discuss it here.
Probably lots of motivated reasoning here as I am doing something quite entrepreneurial myself: A positive about doing something in the early stages is that if we get lots of additional EA funding in a few years (there are indications chances of this are significant), we will likely again be scrambling for people to start new projects, just like in the “FTX days”. It would be good both for:
Candidates to build career capital, knowledge and skills in starting something new, and
For these candidates to have a track record from doing so to demonstrate to grantmakers
I think these skills are somewhat uniquely built in doing something as close as possible to EA entrepreneurship.
I would note a consideration in terms of impact. Orgs that are larger, have more resources for better perks, can offer higher pay, and are more prestigious are going to be able to attract stronger applicants, all else being equal. Consequently, your impact is going to be the delta between the world with you in that position in the org and that of the person who would occupy that position. Consequently, your expected impact might be small or negative (or it could be high if you are exceptional at it relative to the second best option). I think EAs in general tend to conflate the value that is actualized by an org’s operation with their counterfactual impact by taking a job at such an org.
I understand the concerns with small, new, organizations with less funding. Surely in some circumstances this can be a reflection of the merits of the organization, but in some circumstances, there is a promising project that needs help getting off the ground. The counterfactual person who might occupy the position in question for that org might not exist at all or could be much less competent. If you have reason to believe an org is significantly underrated in terms of funding access, prestige, etc., helping in early stages might be the highest EV choice.
This also is probably more of a hits-based approach than joining an established, funded, prestigious org. If you join that org, you will have a high probably of seeing legible impact and feel good about being a part of it, although it is hard to surmise what difference you made versus the other person they would have counterfactually hired. On the other hand, joining a new organization that you think has a promising theory of change is much less likely to yield a legibly impactful outcome. Even if there is a sound theory, there are just a lot of variables that could prevent a new org from being impactful. On the other hand, if such an org does succeed and scales, your dedicated and competent support of the org may actually have been the but-for cause of its success, implying high utility gains. If you are talented, hardworking, bright, good at networking, organized, etc. and are good at assessing areas that might be undervalued, I think the highest impact work would be at such underrated orgs. I definitely think this approach is less likely to lead to more happy or secure lives, however.
Agreed; but I’d also add that I think in any role, the default assumption is that if you’re selected for the job, you’re likely to be at least somewhat better than the next best candidate. Applying for the job is a great way to find this out, and if you’re uncertain about the counterfactual, you can also be open with the team about this and ask them how much they prefer you to the next best candidate – I’ve done this before and got replies that I think are honest and open. (Though some care is needed with this reasoning: if everyone did this, they’d just end up down at the best candidate who doesn’t think to ask this.)
But yeah agree that the gap between you and the next best candidate is likely to be bigger for a less conventionally-appealing project.
(Additional musing this made me think of: there’s also the consideration that the next-best candidate also has a counterfactual, and if they’re aligned will probably themselves end up doing something else impactful if they don’t take this job. A bit of a rabbit hole, but I think can still be useful: e.g. you could consider whether you seem more or less dedicated to a high-impact career than the typical applicant for the job. Or could ask the hiring manager whether they had promising community-external candidates, and whether they think you being aligned adds a lot to how well you’ll do in the role.)
Agreed, if you or other people want to read about issues with naive counterfactuals, I briefly discuss it here.
Probably lots of motivated reasoning here as I am doing something quite entrepreneurial myself: A positive about doing something in the early stages is that if we get lots of additional EA funding in a few years (there are indications chances of this are significant), we will likely again be scrambling for people to start new projects, just like in the “FTX days”. It would be good both for:
Candidates to build career capital, knowledge and skills in starting something new, and
For these candidates to have a track record from doing so to demonstrate to grantmakers
I think these skills are somewhat uniquely built in doing something as close as possible to EA entrepreneurship.