I think that the author undervalues value alignment and how the natural state is towards one of regression to the norm unless specific action is taken to avoid this
I think there is difference between âvalue alignmentâ and âpersonal connectionâ. I agree that the former is important, and I think the latter is often used (mostly successfully) as a tool to encourage the former. I addressed one aspect of this in the Hiring Managers section.
I agree that as EA scales, we will be less able to rely personal relationships, but I see no reason to impose those costs now
Fair, but I worry that if weâre not prepared for this then the costs will be greater, more sudden, and confusing, e.g. people starting to feel that EA is no longer fun or good and not knowing why. I think itâs good to be thinking about these things and make the tactical choice to do nothing, rather than leaving âoverreliance on personal connections can be badâ out of our strategic arsenal completely.
I agree that it may affect our reputation in the outside world, but I donât think itâs worth increasing the risk of bad hires to attempt to satisfy our critics.
I donât think my suggestions for hiring managers would increase the risk of bad hires. In fact, I think moving away from âmy friend is friends with this personâ and towards âthis person demonstrates that they care deeply about this missionâ would decrease the risk of bad hires. (Sorry if this doesnât make sense, but I donât want to go on for too long in a comment.)
moving away from âmy friend is friends with this personâ
I hadnât thought of your post in these explicit terms till now, but now that you write it like that I remember that indeed Iâve already applied to a program which explicitly asked for a reference the head organizer knows personally.
I was rejected from that program twice, though I obviously canât know if the reason was related, and I may still apply in the future.
Explicitly asking for a reference the head organizer knows personally.
That feels pretty bad to me! I can imagine some reason that this would be necessary for some programs, but in general requiring this doesnât seem healthy.
I find the request for references on the EA Fundsâ application to be a good middle-ground. Thereâs several sentences to it, but the most relevant one is:
References by people who are directly involved in effective altruism and adjacent communities are particularly useful, especially if we are likely to be familiar with their work and thinking.
Itâs clearly useful to already be in the fund managersâ network, but itâs also clearly not required. Of course thereâs always a difference between the policy and the practice, but this is a pretty good public policy from my perspective.
I should probably be more precise and say the phrasing was something like âpreferably someone who [organizer] knowsâ.
But since this is presented as the better option, I donât think I see much difference between the two, as youâd expect the actual filtering process to favour exactly those people in the organiserâs network.
I think there is difference between âvalue alignmentâ and âpersonal connectionâ
Agreed. I was responding to:
Hiring managers should post jobs in more places, and be less dismissive of ânon-EAâ applicants
Although we might be more on the same page than I was thinking as you write:
Iâm not saying that we should stop caring about whether candidates and employees understand and care about their organizationâs mission. The mistake is assuming that the only people who understand and believe in my organizationâs mission are members of the effective altruism community
I guess my position is that there may be some people who donât identify with EA who would be really valuable; but itâs also the case that being EA is valuable beyond just caring about the mission in that EAs are likely to have a lot of useful frames.
Fair, but I worry that if weâre not prepared for this then the costs will be greater, more sudden, and confusing
Iâd be surprised if it changed that fast. Like even if a bunch of additional people joined the community, youâd still know the people that you know.
I think the extent to which âmember of the EA communityâ comes along with a certain way of thinking (i.e. âa lot of useful framesâ) is exaggerated by many people Iâve heard talk about this sort of thing. I think ~50% of the perceived similarity is better described as similar ways of speaking and knowledge of jargon. I think that there actually not that many people who have fully internalized new ways of thinking that are 1.) very rare outside of EA, and 2.) shared across most EA hiring managers.
Another way to put this would be: I think EA hiring managers often weight âmembership in the EA communityâ significantly more highly than it should be weighted. I think our disagreement is mostly about how much this factor should be weighted.
Fair point on the fast changing thing. I have some thoughts, but theyâre not very clear and I think what you said is reasonable. One very rough take: Yes youâd still the people you know, but you might go from, âI know 50% of the people in AI alignmentâ to âI know 10% of the people in AI Alignmentâ in 3 months, which could be disorienting and demoralizing. So itâs more of a relative thing than the absolute number of people you know.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback Chris!
I think there is difference between âvalue alignmentâ and âpersonal connectionâ. I agree that the former is important, and I think the latter is often used (mostly successfully) as a tool to encourage the former. I addressed one aspect of this in the Hiring Managers section.
Fair, but I worry that if weâre not prepared for this then the costs will be greater, more sudden, and confusing, e.g. people starting to feel that EA is no longer fun or good and not knowing why. I think itâs good to be thinking about these things and make the tactical choice to do nothing, rather than leaving âoverreliance on personal connections can be badâ out of our strategic arsenal completely.
I donât think my suggestions for hiring managers would increase the risk of bad hires. In fact, I think moving away from âmy friend is friends with this personâ and towards âthis person demonstrates that they care deeply about this missionâ would decrease the risk of bad hires. (Sorry if this doesnât make sense, but I donât want to go on for too long in a comment.)
I hadnât thought of your post in these explicit terms till now, but now that you write it like that I remember that indeed Iâve already applied to a program which explicitly asked for a reference the head organizer knows personally.
I was rejected from that program twice, though I obviously canât know if the reason was related, and I may still apply in the future.
That feels pretty bad to me! I can imagine some reason that this would be necessary for some programs, but in general requiring this doesnât seem healthy.
I find the request for references on the EA Fundsâ application to be a good middle-ground. Thereâs several sentences to it, but the most relevant one is:
Itâs clearly useful to already be in the fund managersâ network, but itâs also clearly not required. Of course thereâs always a difference between the policy and the practice, but this is a pretty good public policy from my perspective.
I should probably be more precise and say the phrasing was something like âpreferably someone who [organizer] knowsâ.
But since this is presented as the better option, I donât think I see much difference between the two, as youâd expect the actual filtering process to favour exactly those people in the organiserâs network.
Agreed. I was responding to:
Although we might be more on the same page than I was thinking as you write:
I guess my position is that there may be some people who donât identify with EA who would be really valuable; but itâs also the case that being EA is valuable beyond just caring about the mission in that EAs are likely to have a lot of useful frames.
Iâd be surprised if it changed that fast. Like even if a bunch of additional people joined the community, youâd still know the people that you know.
I think the extent to which âmember of the EA communityâ comes along with a certain way of thinking (i.e. âa lot of useful framesâ) is exaggerated by many people Iâve heard talk about this sort of thing. I think ~50% of the perceived similarity is better described as similar ways of speaking and knowledge of jargon. I think that there actually not that many people who have fully internalized new ways of thinking that are 1.) very rare outside of EA, and 2.) shared across most EA hiring managers.
Another way to put this would be: I think EA hiring managers often weight âmembership in the EA communityâ significantly more highly than it should be weighted. I think our disagreement is mostly about how much this factor should be weighted.
Fair point on the fast changing thing. I have some thoughts, but theyâre not very clear and I think what you said is reasonable. One very rough take: Yes youâd still the people you know, but you might go from, âI know 50% of the people in AI alignmentâ to âI know 10% of the people in AI Alignmentâ in 3 months, which could be disorienting and demoralizing. So itâs more of a relative thing than the absolute number of people you know.