Thank you for articulating something that many of us who would be considered “generalists” have experienced while trying to transition into AI safety. My path has been remarkably similar and like you, I became concerned about the societal implications of advanced AI, invested significant time in learning the field, sought guidance from people already in the ecosystem, and worked to demonstrate both commitment and alignment.
What stands out to me is the amount of persistence required simply to reach the starting line. I have watched talented professionals spend months learning, networking, volunteering, and repositioning themselves, only to become discouraged by the pace of the transition and ultimately leave for opportunities in other sectors.
That loss is not small and it’s measurable. Every person who exits the field represents a loss of accumulated knowledge, motivation, and some domain expertise. These are often people with years or decades of experience in communications, operations, design, marketing, fundraising, community building, product development, or program management all skills that many organizations say they need but that are difficult to signal through traditional AI safety pathways.
One question I continue to wrestle with is whether the current system is unintentionally selecting for people who can afford extended periods of uncertainty rather than those who can make the greatest contribution. Volunteer work, public writing, networking, and continuous self-education may be reasonable signals of commitment, but they also create barriers that disproportionately affect experienced professionals with financial obligations and established careers. (One of my career mentors is leaving the field due to family obligations and a need to earn income. Her leaving the field is a tremendous loss.) I also share some skepticism about the widespread advice to “write publicly.” For some roles, particularly research, policy, and communications, public writing is a strong signal. For many operational and execution-oriented roles, however, the strongest evidence of capability is often the work itself. We should be careful not to assume that every valuable contributor needs to become a public intellectual.
I remain optimistic about the field and grateful for the people who have offered guidance along the way.
Really good point that the field is selecting for those can withstand the uncertainty. I wonder if that’s to some degree an appropriate selection i.e. in a field that relies on funding from a relatively small pool of donors.
Karen, nice to see you here after the CE Career transition course! Keep at it, my friend. You will find your place. There’s a puzzle out there that is looking for YOU as the perfect-fitting piece. Would love to know how it evolves for you!
Thank you for articulating something that many of us who would be considered “generalists” have experienced while trying to transition into AI safety. My path has been remarkably similar and like you, I became concerned about the societal implications of advanced AI, invested significant time in learning the field, sought guidance from people already in the ecosystem, and worked to demonstrate both commitment and alignment.
What stands out to me is the amount of persistence required simply to reach the starting line. I have watched talented professionals spend months learning, networking, volunteering, and repositioning themselves, only to become discouraged by the pace of the transition and ultimately leave for opportunities in other sectors.
That loss is not small and it’s measurable. Every person who exits the field represents a loss of accumulated knowledge, motivation, and some domain expertise. These are often people with years or decades of experience in communications, operations, design, marketing, fundraising, community building, product development, or program management all skills that many organizations say they need but that are difficult to signal through traditional AI safety pathways.
One question I continue to wrestle with is whether the current system is unintentionally selecting for people who can afford extended periods of uncertainty rather than those who can make the greatest contribution. Volunteer work, public writing, networking, and continuous self-education may be reasonable signals of commitment, but they also create barriers that disproportionately affect experienced professionals with financial obligations and established careers. (One of my career mentors is leaving the field due to family obligations and a need to earn income. Her leaving the field is a tremendous loss.) I also share some skepticism about the widespread advice to “write publicly.” For some roles, particularly research, policy, and communications, public writing is a strong signal. For many operational and execution-oriented roles, however, the strongest evidence of capability is often the work itself. We should be careful not to assume that every valuable contributor needs to become a public intellectual.
I remain optimistic about the field and grateful for the people who have offered guidance along the way.
Really good point that the field is selecting for those can withstand the uncertainty. I wonder if that’s to some degree an appropriate selection i.e. in a field that relies on funding from a relatively small pool of donors.
Karen, nice to see you here after the CE Career transition course! Keep at it, my friend. You will find your place. There’s a puzzle out there that is looking for YOU as the perfect-fitting piece. Would love to know how it evolves for you!
Great to see you here too. I am hopeful that I will find the opportunity that allows me to have impact and utilize my skills.