Is there any work on calibration /ā assessing how well the 2024 report held up? Would be really useful to know how well the hiring managersā (etc.) predictions can be expected to hold up. Put another way, everything in this report rings true to me, but if itās true but e.g. the opportunities/ājobs for Connectors and Amplifiers donāt actually manifest, thenā¦ that seems bad?
We didnāt expressly assess how the 2024 report held up, but my impression is that the Iterator, Amplifier, Connector roles are still pretty solid as archetypes, but the emphasis is shifting. For example, labs still want Iterators, but admit that those skills will largely be replaced by AI automation in a few years and are looking for something more like a Connector/āIterator (or at a minimum Iterators with extreme research taste). Similarly the Connector role was not as in demand previously (most orgs are founded by one Connector-type with a new agenda to pursue, and everyone else iterates). It may be that new agendas combined with automated research and rapid iteration accelerate AI safety innovationāthat was suggested.
This report covers a little broader scope than the original in that it extends to AI Safety governance. Many of those roles broadly fit the Amplifier archetype, but in actuality they are more nuanced. For example, there is demand for people with organizational knowledge and AI safety grounding who can take high-level ideas and effectuate them in government. They need technical knowledge, organizational judgment, and also must excel at communicating ideas to non-technical stakeholders.
So, to answer the question of whether these predictions hold upā¦ If the past is any indicator, they are directionally correct, but subject to change! Letās check back in two years and see how we did.
Is there any work on calibration /ā assessing how well the 2024 report held up? Would be really useful to know how well the hiring managersā (etc.) predictions can be expected to hold up. Put another way, everything in this report rings true to me, but if itās true but e.g. the opportunities/ājobs for Connectors and Amplifiers donāt actually manifest, thenā¦ that seems bad?
We didnāt expressly assess how the 2024 report held up, but my impression is that the Iterator, Amplifier, Connector roles are still pretty solid as archetypes, but the emphasis is shifting. For example, labs still want Iterators, but admit that those skills will largely be replaced by AI automation in a few years and are looking for something more like a Connector/āIterator (or at a minimum Iterators with extreme research taste). Similarly the Connector role was not as in demand previously (most orgs are founded by one Connector-type with a new agenda to pursue, and everyone else iterates). It may be that new agendas combined with automated research and rapid iteration accelerate AI safety innovationāthat was suggested.
This report covers a little broader scope than the original in that it extends to AI Safety governance. Many of those roles broadly fit the Amplifier archetype, but in actuality they are more nuanced. For example, there is demand for people with organizational knowledge and AI safety grounding who can take high-level ideas and effectuate them in government. They need technical knowledge, organizational judgment, and also must excel at communicating ideas to non-technical stakeholders.
So, to answer the question of whether these predictions hold upā¦ If the past is any indicator, they are directionally correct, but subject to change! Letās check back in two years and see how we did.