From your description, it seems like you might be more likely to end up in the tail of ability for quantum computing, if one of the best quantum computing startups is trying to hire you.
I think this is right.
You don’t say that some of the top AI safety orgs are trying to hire you.
I was thinking of trying an academic career. So yeah, not really anyone seeking for me, it was more me trying to go to Chicago to learn from Victor Veitch and change careers.
Then you have to consider how useful quantum algorithms are to existential risk.
I think it is quite unlikely that this will be so. I’m 95% sure that QC will not be used in advanced AI, and even if that were the case, it is quite unlikely it will matter for AIS: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/ZkgqsyWgyDx4ZssqJ/implications-of-quantum-computing-for-artificial Perhaps I could be surprised, but do we really need someone watch out in case this turns out valuable? My intuition is that if that were to happen I could just learn whatever development has happened quite quickly with my current background. I could spend say, 1-3h a month, and that would probably be enough to be on the watch.
One thing you should consider is that most of the impact is likely to be at the tails. For instance, the distribution of impact for people is probably power-law distributed (this is true in ML in terms of first author citations; I suspect it could be true for safety specifically).
In fact, the reason why I wanted to go for academia, apart from my personal fit, is that the AI Safety community is right now very tilted towards the industry. I think there is a real risk that between blog posts and high-level ideas we could end up with a reputation crisis. We need to be seen as a serious scientific research area, and for that, we need more academic research and way better definitions of the concrete problems we are trying to solve. In other words, if we don’t get over the current `preparadigmaticity’ of the field, we risk reputation damage.
Then you have to think about how likely quantum computing is likely to make you really rich (probably through equity, not salary).
Good question. I have been offered 10k stock options with a value of around $5 to $10 each. Right now the valuation of this startup is in $3B. What do you think?
Also, have you considered 80k advising?
I want to talk to Habiba before making a decision but she was busy this week with EAGx Oxford. Let’s see what she thinks.
I think this is right.
I was thinking of trying an academic career. So yeah, not really anyone seeking for me, it was more me trying to go to Chicago to learn from Victor Veitch and change careers.
I think it is quite unlikely that this will be so. I’m 95% sure that QC will not be used in advanced AI, and even if that were the case, it is quite unlikely it will matter for AIS: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/ZkgqsyWgyDx4ZssqJ/implications-of-quantum-computing-for-artificial Perhaps I could be surprised, but do we really need someone watch out in case this turns out valuable? My intuition is that if that were to happen I could just learn whatever development has happened quite quickly with my current background. I could spend say, 1-3h a month, and that would probably be enough to be on the watch.
In fact, the reason why I wanted to go for academia, apart from my personal fit, is that the AI Safety community is right now very tilted towards the industry. I think there is a real risk that between blog posts and high-level ideas we could end up with a reputation crisis. We need to be seen as a serious scientific research area, and for that, we need more academic research and way better definitions of the concrete problems we are trying to solve. In other words, if we don’t get over the current `preparadigmaticity’ of the field, we risk reputation damage.
Good question. I have been offered 10k stock options with a value of around $5 to $10 each. Right now the valuation of this startup is in $3B. What do you think?
Thanks Thomas!