Interesting, my takeaway from FTX was exactly the opposite. That we should focus on getting away from venture capitalists/âacquiring as much money as possible/âother mindsets that got us into this mess, and instead cultivate talent that are so dedicated to EA that theyâre willing to do altruistic work for very little money.
My update from a case of fraud isnât that money canât be made ethically. This isnât to dismiss the possibility of value drift etc, which we should take even more seriously than we have been.
Having said that , a few things:
I generally am in favor of moving away from a vibes/âpatronage based community to a more meritocratic professional-ish group. And the approach you suggested (ie not paying people well) doesnât make it easy to hire people from the âoutside worldâ whom we have a lot to learn from (like hmm corporate governance maybe? or accounting?)I think itâll also make the diversity problem significantly worseâand continue selecting for privileged folks who can afford to actually do the work âpurely altruisticallyâ
Also, there are a bunch of ways in which labor canât substitute for capital. I work in biosecurity and it seems like we can do significantly fewer things now , especially magaporjects that involve significant brick and mortar infrastructure. I wouldnât be surprised if at some point down the road, AI Safety also requires significant spend on compute/âdata., not to say anything of the myriad neartermist stuff thatâs almost infinitely scalable.
In general, my update is from the situation is more : we need money but we also need better ops , more interfacing with the real world, better corporate governance and generally fewer incentuousy lookign orgs.
instead cultivate talent that are so dedicated to EA that theyâre willing to do altruistic work for very little money.
As someone who is working at an EA org for free, I donât agree with this.
I come from a background of non-EA youth advocacy for multiple cause areas, including education, climate change and animal rights. I have had so many good co-founders go into non impact-focused, high paying roles like consulting because they donât get paid anywhere near the value they provide.
If you want good talent that knows how to plan, takes initiative and knows how to execute, that kind of talent knows enough to apply to dozens of other better-paying roles, and probably enough to secure very high paying roles.
I work for free now because Iâm in uni and itâs socially acceptable to not make full-time pay. If you underpay a competent person, they will not only face financial pressure, but also see it as a reflection of how they are valued. I donât think this leads to healthy movement growth in the long run.
Interesting, my takeaway from FTX was exactly the opposite. That we should focus on getting away from venture capitalists/âacquiring as much money as possible/âother mindsets that got us into this mess, and instead cultivate talent that are so dedicated to EA that theyâre willing to do altruistic work for very little money.
My update from a case of fraud isnât that money canât be made ethically. This isnât to dismiss the possibility of value drift etc, which we should take even more seriously than we have been.
Having said that , a few things:
I generally am in favor of moving away from a vibes/âpatronage based community to a more meritocratic professional-ish group. And the approach you suggested (ie not paying people well) doesnât make it easy to hire people from the âoutside worldâ whom we have a lot to learn from (like hmm corporate governance maybe? or accounting?)I think itâll also make the diversity problem significantly worseâand continue selecting for privileged folks who can afford to actually do the work âpurely altruisticallyâ
Also, there are a bunch of ways in which labor canât substitute for capital. I work in biosecurity and it seems like we can do significantly fewer things now , especially magaporjects that involve significant brick and mortar infrastructure. I wouldnât be surprised if at some point down the road, AI Safety also requires significant spend on compute/âdata., not to say anything of the myriad neartermist stuff thatâs almost infinitely scalable.
In general, my update is from the situation is more : we need money but we also need better ops , more interfacing with the real world, better corporate governance and generally fewer incentuousy lookign orgs.
Posted this early, so excuse any notifications.
As someone who is working at an EA org for free, I donât agree with this.
I come from a background of non-EA youth advocacy for multiple cause areas, including education, climate change and animal rights. I have had so many good co-founders go into non impact-focused, high paying roles like consulting because they donât get paid anywhere near the value they provide.
If you want good talent that knows how to plan, takes initiative and knows how to execute, that kind of talent knows enough to apply to dozens of other better-paying roles, and probably enough to secure very high paying roles.
I work for free now because Iâm in uni and itâs socially acceptable to not make full-time pay. If you underpay a competent person, they will not only face financial pressure, but also see it as a reflection of how they are valued. I donât think this leads to healthy movement growth in the long run.
What percent of expenses in various cause areas are for professional staff in high-income countries?