Is THAT the problem? Not being involved in the hiring, I actually didn’t know WHO was getting hired. If they are the most qualified and the most capable of creating the positive outcome I’m hoping for, then I’m happy for them and the system.
My experience is that I have ALSO been told that there is a need for people with my skills (communications) and I’ve followed a similar trajectory described in the post and, so far, have not experienced that bottlenecks that have been described. I have 20+ years in communications, most of it in advanced technologies. I have worked in EA and for AI safety organizations. It seems to me that there is a miscommunication about the need in the sector.
Perhaps part of the problem is that it’s such a nascent field that there are not enough organizations to support the work that needs to be done to ensure that AI goes well. As we know, it’s progressing so rapidly, and the worry has always been that humans and our systems (being somewhat “slow” or at least linear in our ability to change) won’t/can’t keep up with the exponential rates of change required by the technology. I think we can expect that this type of change in the workforce should continue as new technologies often DO have this effect on the workforce.
It is important to signal to our communities our areas of expertise and interest—hence, the “writing publicly” prompt. However, while necessary, it’s not sufficient for finding my particular fit in the sector, even as a communications leader. For all of us, I believe the “signalling” is more just evidence of the reskilling that’s required.
If the bottleneck doesn’t exist, then perhaps that’s a good thing. It’s evidence that the sector is well staffed and the systems in place have been doing their job well. Then my role is to do the most good I CAN. If that means I don’t work in AI safety, but that there are more qualified people doing that work instead, then I can be assured that our AI future will go well ;)
In the meantime, I continue to work on the projects that come my way that can do the “most good”. I congratulate all of us who are bringing our best intentions to the world—we can’t help but make it better.
Is THAT the problem? Not being involved in the hiring, I actually didn’t know WHO was getting hired. If they are the most qualified and the most capable of creating the positive outcome I’m hoping for, then I’m happy for them and the system.
If we frame the problem as a talent gap, it’s more about which roles aren’t filled—not only in the sense of positions remaining vacant but also including cases where the process takes a long time, seniority gets lowered or organizations work around the lack of talent, e.g. by shifting tasks to other roles or resigning from certain growth directions.
Who is getting hired (and more importantly: who isn’t) is a highly correlated but a different issue in my eyes. Even if all the vacancies got easily filled by people perceived as the most qualified, I’d argue that keeping the ecosystem closed to outsiders is still a major problem. Beyond the obvious equitability angle, it also encourages the homogeneity of thought and reinforces the perception of EA living in a bubble.
Overall I feel like communications is a very specific edge case here. Forgive me if I oversimplify but “understanding what and how to signal in order to convince a group of people from a different culture to take certain action” sounds exactly like the job description of a communications specialist, especially for an area like AI safety.
A recruitment process requiring this skillset to navigate does actually optimize for good comms specialists. At the same time, it will filter out talented software engineers, project managers, subject matter experts, etc. based on gaps in an area that has little impact on their actual on the job performance.
Hi Cathy, I think you touch on the need for generalists not just to find roles within existing orgs but to actually found orgs, start projects, etc. independently. I believe this is a viable path, as there are grants willing to fund projects with a sound theory of change.
I also wonder if a lot of the talk of bottlenecks is anticipatory regarding the upcoming IPOs. Not sure!
Yes, exactly, Emily! And in fact, if I thought I knew WHAT to do then I would start that company. I just don’t for sure know what is needed. Maybe I need to be partnered with someone who has a really good idea. Or maybe I just need to start something and see if the need is there? I suppose that’s what the start-up idea funding is meant to help with.
Is THAT the problem? Not being involved in the hiring, I actually didn’t know WHO was getting hired. If they are the most qualified and the most capable of creating the positive outcome I’m hoping for, then I’m happy for them and the system.
My experience is that I have ALSO been told that there is a need for people with my skills (communications) and I’ve followed a similar trajectory described in the post and, so far, have not experienced that bottlenecks that have been described. I have 20+ years in communications, most of it in advanced technologies. I have worked in EA and for AI safety organizations. It seems to me that there is a miscommunication about the need in the sector.
Perhaps part of the problem is that it’s such a nascent field that there are not enough organizations to support the work that needs to be done to ensure that AI goes well. As we know, it’s progressing so rapidly, and the worry has always been that humans and our systems (being somewhat “slow” or at least linear in our ability to change) won’t/can’t keep up with the exponential rates of change required by the technology. I think we can expect that this type of change in the workforce should continue as new technologies often DO have this effect on the workforce.
It is important to signal to our communities our areas of expertise and interest—hence, the “writing publicly” prompt. However, while necessary, it’s not sufficient for finding my particular fit in the sector, even as a communications leader. For all of us, I believe the “signalling” is more just evidence of the reskilling that’s required.
If the bottleneck doesn’t exist, then perhaps that’s a good thing. It’s evidence that the sector is well staffed and the systems in place have been doing their job well. Then my role is to do the most good I CAN. If that means I don’t work in AI safety, but that there are more qualified people doing that work instead, then I can be assured that our AI future will go well ;)
In the meantime, I continue to work on the projects that come my way that can do the “most good”. I congratulate all of us who are bringing our best intentions to the world—we can’t help but make it better.
If we frame the problem as a talent gap, it’s more about which roles aren’t filled—not only in the sense of positions remaining vacant but also including cases where the process takes a long time, seniority gets lowered or organizations work around the lack of talent, e.g. by shifting tasks to other roles or resigning from certain growth directions.
Who is getting hired (and more importantly: who isn’t) is a highly correlated but a different issue in my eyes. Even if all the vacancies got easily filled by people perceived as the most qualified, I’d argue that keeping the ecosystem closed to outsiders is still a major problem. Beyond the obvious equitability angle, it also encourages the homogeneity of thought and reinforces the perception of EA living in a bubble.
Overall I feel like communications is a very specific edge case here. Forgive me if I oversimplify but “understanding what and how to signal in order to convince a group of people from a different culture to take certain action” sounds exactly like the job description of a communications specialist, especially for an area like AI safety.
A recruitment process requiring this skillset to navigate does actually optimize for good comms specialists. At the same time, it will filter out talented software engineers, project managers, subject matter experts, etc. based on gaps in an area that has little impact on their actual on the job performance.
Hi Cathy, I think you touch on the need for generalists not just to find roles within existing orgs but to actually found orgs, start projects, etc. independently. I believe this is a viable path, as there are grants willing to fund projects with a sound theory of change.
I also wonder if a lot of the talk of bottlenecks is anticipatory regarding the upcoming IPOs. Not sure!
Yes, exactly, Emily! And in fact, if I thought I knew WHAT to do then I would start that company. I just don’t for sure know what is needed. Maybe I need to be partnered with someone who has a really good idea. Or maybe I just need to start something and see if the need is there? I suppose that’s what the start-up idea funding is meant to help with.