Isn’t TC in the movement just the aggregation of TC in relevant orgs
and actors?
Yes it seems to be. All I wanted was to avoid a level of
abstraction. “AI strategy is TC in DR” vs “FHI is TC in DR”. I really
feel confused thinking about the former. The later is so concrete. I
can test it. I can go in depth in that ONE EXAMPLE. The former is too
broad. I find it easier to think in concrete examples.
There’s a tradeoff between specificity/concreteness and
representatives/unreliability, and for most purposes, the latter
seems more useful to me?
Interesting! Would you be able to give me a real example to satisfy
your claim? I claim that concreteness seems useful to me and if I get
an example I hold on to it for dear life and test all claims atleast
against that one example.
Claim: Concreteness seems useful.
Example: Consider: “Many community members should seek
positions in government, academia, and other existing institutions.”
I am lost. What is “MANY”? What does a “position in government” even
look like. All this until I saw this beautiful example: “DoD’s new
Joint AI Center alone is apparently looking to hire up to 200
people.”. I understand finally what many and position in government
is.
Animal Advocacy Careers will be offering one-to-one advising
soon. Before it is officially launched, people can sign up to
express their interest here.
That’s great. I subscribed already. Thank You very much Jamie.
<<Would you be able to give me a real example to satisfy your claim?>>
The difference here is probably whether an individual or an organisation (80k, AAC) is evaluating TC.
If, via some research, you have the ability to either 1) make claims about TC across a movement or range or orgs, with moderate confidence or 2) make claims about TC in one or two orgs, with higher confidence, an individual might opt for (2), as they can focus on orgs they’re more interested in. But 80k/AAC would opt for (1), because the advice is useful to a larger number of people?
<<I am lost. What is “MANY”? What does a “position in government” even look like.>>
Given that the ideal distribution of roles and applicants and how this compares to the current situation is only really one consideration among several important considerations that affect career decisions (i.e. it affects your comparative advantage), maybe a high level of precision isn’t that important?
I think it is worthwhile to note that in your latest article in
the abstract you make a few claims such as: “EAs are struggling to
fill fundraising and operations roles”. But you also think it is
important and have dedicated a whole article to a bunch of
similar claims on bottleneck, showing why you think there is “weak
evidence” and explain what the “weak evidence” is.
If you are saying you will make representative statements but provide
the evidence you have for it, then this discussion is moot (rendered
unimportant by recent events). For me evidence gives a way to
understand how “struggling” EAAs are and quickly test it.
Claims: Representatives for most certain purposes seems to be
more useful than specificity/concreteness.
Example:
If, via some research, you have the ability to either 1) make claims
about TC across a movement or range or orgs, with moderate confidence
or 2) make claims about TC in one or two orgs, with higher confidence,
an individual might opt for (2), as they can focus on orgs they’re
more interested in. But 80k/AAC would opt for (1), because the advice
is useful to a larger number of people
Discussion
This doesn’t look like an example that satisfies the claim. Atleast I
am unable to see how it is “useful”. Plus there is another claim in
the explanation that this type of advice will be useful for a larger
number of people. Instead, can you show me one actual
“representatives-statement” that satisfies “being more useful” than
its “concreteness” alternative. In the previous reply to you I believe
I clarify with one example how “concreteness” overpowers
“representatives” in being “useful”, when people read it.
Given that the ideal distribution of roles and applicants and how
this compares to the current situation is only really one
consideration among several important considerations that affect
career decisions (i.e. it affects your comparative advantage), maybe
a high level of precision isn’t that important?
And I don’t get what you mean by “ideal situation and current
situation is an important consideration for career decisions”.
Are you trying to say that looking at one example might not be useful
as it is somehow not precise? and that we should be rather happy with
general statements? Do you have an example to show what you mean?
Hi Jamie,
Thank You for your comment.
Yes it seems to be. All I wanted was to avoid a level of abstraction. “AI strategy is TC in DR” vs “FHI is TC in DR”. I really feel confused thinking about the former. The later is so concrete. I can test it. I can go in depth in that ONE EXAMPLE. The former is too broad. I find it easier to think in concrete examples.
Interesting! Would you be able to give me a real example to satisfy your claim? I claim that concreteness seems useful to me and if I get an example I hold on to it for dear life and test all claims atleast against that one example.
Claim: Concreteness seems useful.
Example: Consider: “Many community members should seek positions in government, academia, and other existing institutions.”
I am lost. What is “MANY”? What does a “position in government” even look like. All this until I saw this beautiful example: “DoD’s new Joint AI Center alone is apparently looking to hire up to 200 people.”. I understand finally what many and position in government is.
That’s great. I subscribed already. Thank You very much Jamie.
<<Would you be able to give me a real example to satisfy your claim?>>
The difference here is probably whether an individual or an organisation (80k, AAC) is evaluating TC.
If, via some research, you have the ability to either 1) make claims about TC across a movement or range or orgs, with moderate confidence or 2) make claims about TC in one or two orgs, with higher confidence, an individual might opt for (2), as they can focus on orgs they’re more interested in. But 80k/AAC would opt for (1), because the advice is useful to a larger number of people?
<<I am lost. What is “MANY”? What does a “position in government” even look like.>> Given that the ideal distribution of roles and applicants and how this compares to the current situation is only really one consideration among several important considerations that affect career decisions (i.e. it affects your comparative advantage), maybe a high level of precision isn’t that important?
TL;DR
I think we might be on the same page.
I think it is worthwhile to note that in your latest article in the abstract you make a few claims such as: “EAs are struggling to fill fundraising and operations roles”. But you also think it is important and have dedicated a whole article to a bunch of similar claims on bottleneck, showing why you think there is “weak evidence” and explain what the “weak evidence” is.
If you are saying you will make representative statements but provide the evidence you have for it, then this discussion is moot (rendered unimportant by recent events). For me evidence gives a way to understand how “struggling” EAAs are and quickly test it.
Claims: Representatives for
mostcertain purposes seems to be more useful than specificity/concreteness.Example:
Discussion
This doesn’t look like an example that satisfies the claim. Atleast I am unable to see how it is “useful”. Plus there is another claim in the explanation that this type of advice will be useful for a larger number of people. Instead, can you show me one actual “representatives-statement” that satisfies “being more useful” than its “concreteness” alternative. In the previous reply to you I believe I clarify with one example how “concreteness” overpowers “representatives” in being “useful”, when people read it.
And I don’t get what you mean by “ideal situation and current situation is an important consideration for career decisions”.
Are you trying to say that looking at one example might not be useful as it is somehow not precise? and that we should be rather happy with general statements? Do you have an example to show what you mean?
Thanks.