Thanks for your answeing. I think there’s another category for your theory of change: 3.Doing important work that not enough people “can” do it well. And that’s more similar to 1. Another way to put it, how much $ do you think would it be worth for me to pay for a USA green card, if it can be bought?
I considered “doing work better” to be included in “doing work differently,” but probably better to name these explicitly, thanks! Either the direction could be different (different goals) or the productivity (difference in effort/fit/etc).
On immigration, I think the EA orgs are terrible entry examples for counterfactual impact. There is already large interest to enter them despite the small size of the field so you’d probably replace a similarly good candidate who already had US work permit.
For AI companies, you could argue that you’d likely replace someone who has potentially never thought about safety before. But the AI entry roles are also incredibly competitive so it’s not that you directly replace someone, it’s more like you change the candidate distribution from 1000:10 to 1000:11 (non-safety vs safety focused).
I think it’s worth considering upskilling outside these bubles and then transfer as your profile becomes more scarse.
Thanks for your answeing. I think there’s another category for your theory of change: 3.Doing important work that not enough people “can” do it well. And that’s more similar to 1. Another way to put it, how much $ do you think would it be worth for me to pay for a USA green card, if it can be bought?
I considered “doing work better” to be included in “doing work differently,” but probably better to name these explicitly, thanks! Either the direction could be different (different goals) or the productivity (difference in effort/fit/etc).
On immigration, I think the EA orgs are terrible entry examples for counterfactual impact. There is already large interest to enter them despite the small size of the field so you’d probably replace a similarly good candidate who already had US work permit.
For AI companies, you could argue that you’d likely replace someone who has potentially never thought about safety before. But the AI entry roles are also incredibly competitive so it’s not that you directly replace someone, it’s more like you change the candidate distribution from 1000:10 to 1000:11 (non-safety vs safety focused).
I think it’s worth considering upskilling outside these bubles and then transfer as your profile becomes more scarse.