That’s a helpful distinction and honestly it sharpens my thinking. If the roles are out there, then the real gap isn’t that people can’t find the door, it’s that most people don’t yet have what it takes to walk through it or understand the pathway to get there.
That’s the part I was really trying to name. Someone who genuinely cares about this work but can’t yet meet the bar for an AI safety role isn’t going to wait around. They’re going to take the governance, policy, or corporate “ai ethics” job that’s hiring right now because that path exists and this one is harder to navigate. By the time the ecosystem builds the infrastructure to develop that person, it’s already lost them.
So I’ll refine what I said: the front door may be more visible than I implied. The pathway to being ready to walk through it is what’s missing.
What you and your colleagues are building with the Generator Residency is exactly the kind of infrastructure this ecosystem needs. Creating a structured pathway that develops, credentials, and places generalists is the missing piece. I’m excited to see it and share it with my cohort team members.
I’ll add one more data point from where I’m sitting right now. In my CEA bootcamp cohort there are several talented, mission-aligned generalists actively searching for roles in AI safety organizations. The consistent challenge isn’t motivation or alignment, it’s access. Without a technical background, breaking into this ecosystem often comes down to who you know or who referred you.
I hope the Generator Residency is the first of many programs like it. The talent is out there and it is mission aligned.
Karen, your reply appears to be AI-generated. I recommend avoiding using LLMs in job applications and EA Forum conversations—the prose isn’t good and (most) people still prefer talking with humans.
It’s extremely intimidating to write in the EAForum. Normally I write my thoughts and ask Google or Claude to edit for mistakes or clarity.
This is such an important conversation that I am living through now. I wanted to add not detract from the conversation. I will go back to lurking on the EA Forum.
I made an account here so I can post this comment.
I wanted to thank you for raising these issues. Similar to you, I’m a senior professional. I’m part of Bluedot and CEA cohorts which also include other senior professionals (20-30 years experience). These professionals (and myself) have already had impactful careers, and are looking to pivot into new impactful roles where our skills and experience can be applied.
With my personal background, it would be much easier (and probably better financially) for me to pivot into corporate AI Governance rather than AI safety. I’d prefer not to do this since it seems less impactful.
I also find the distinction in these discussions between technical / researcher roles and ‘generalist’ (ie non-technical) roles to be an interesting framing. It seems to me that there are other ways of assessing mission alignment, and there is a risk of overweighting on technical expertise, as HannahGB questions below.
To give a concrete (but invented) example:
Scenario 1: Lets imagine that we have an AI safety organisation doing wonderful research. The researchers take their results, and present at a technical conference. Attendees are very impressed, and this inspires other researchers to continue to develop the research pathway.
Scenario 2: Lets imagine the same research at a different AI safety organisation. The researcher briefs the executive leadership of the organisation on their results. The organisation works with their policy lead to tease out the implications of the research results. The policy and communications leads work together to define an advocacy position and their proposals, supported by a strong briefing deck with talking points that are understandable by a semi-technical government audience. A lawyer helps prepare zero draft text for inclusion in regulation. The policy lead links the organisation with regulators from their network, to present the research and advocate for improved governance. The Comms lead arranges publicity and advocacy for the discussion through their comms networks. And the researcher still gets to present the research at a technical conference.
It seems to me like there’s a lot of Scenario 1 work happening in the field. And then some separate organisations working on AI governance and oversight from a legislative and policy perspective. My question is whether there is also opportunity for more of the Scenario 2 type approach?
Agustin,
That’s a helpful distinction and honestly it sharpens my thinking. If the roles are out there, then the real gap isn’t that people can’t find the door, it’s that most people don’t yet have what it takes to walk through it or understand the pathway to get there.
That’s the part I was really trying to name. Someone who genuinely cares about this work but can’t yet meet the bar for an AI safety role isn’t going to wait around. They’re going to take the governance, policy, or corporate “ai ethics” job that’s hiring right now because that path exists and this one is harder to navigate. By the time the ecosystem builds the infrastructure to develop that person, it’s already lost them.
So I’ll refine what I said: the front door may be more visible than I implied. The pathway to being ready to walk through it is what’s missing.
What you and your colleagues are building with the Generator Residency is exactly the kind of infrastructure this ecosystem needs. Creating a structured pathway that develops, credentials, and places generalists is the missing piece. I’m excited to see it and share it with my cohort team members.
I’ll add one more data point from where I’m sitting right now. In my CEA bootcamp cohort there are several talented, mission-aligned generalists actively searching for roles in AI safety organizations. The consistent challenge isn’t motivation or alignment, it’s access. Without a technical background, breaking into this ecosystem often comes down to who you know or who referred you.
I hope the Generator Residency is the first of many programs like it. The talent is out there and it is mission aligned.
Karen, your reply appears to be AI-generated. I recommend avoiding using LLMs in job applications and EA Forum conversations—the prose isn’t good and (most) people still prefer talking with humans.
It’s extremely intimidating to write in the EAForum. Normally I write my thoughts and ask Google or Claude to edit for mistakes or clarity.
This is such an important conversation that I am living through now. I wanted to add not detract from the conversation. I will go back to lurking on the EA Forum.
Hi Karen,
I made an account here so I can post this comment.
I wanted to thank you for raising these issues. Similar to you, I’m a senior professional. I’m part of Bluedot and CEA cohorts which also include other senior professionals (20-30 years experience). These professionals (and myself) have already had impactful careers, and are looking to pivot into new impactful roles where our skills and experience can be applied.
With my personal background, it would be much easier (and probably better financially) for me to pivot into corporate AI Governance rather than AI safety. I’d prefer not to do this since it seems less impactful.
I also find the distinction in these discussions between technical / researcher roles and ‘generalist’ (ie non-technical) roles to be an interesting framing. It seems to me that there are other ways of assessing mission alignment, and there is a risk of overweighting on technical expertise, as HannahGB questions below.
To give a concrete (but invented) example:
Scenario 1: Lets imagine that we have an AI safety organisation doing wonderful research. The researchers take their results, and present at a technical conference. Attendees are very impressed, and this inspires other researchers to continue to develop the research pathway.
Scenario 2: Lets imagine the same research at a different AI safety organisation. The researcher briefs the executive leadership of the organisation on their results. The organisation works with their policy lead to tease out the implications of the research results. The policy and communications leads work together to define an advocacy position and their proposals, supported by a strong briefing deck with talking points that are understandable by a semi-technical government audience. A lawyer helps prepare zero draft text for inclusion in regulation. The policy lead links the organisation with regulators from their network, to present the research and advocate for improved governance. The Comms lead arranges publicity and advocacy for the discussion through their comms networks. And the researcher still gets to present the research at a technical conference.
It seems to me like there’s a lot of Scenario 1 work happening in the field. And then some separate organisations working on AI governance and oversight from a legislative and policy perspective. My question is whether there is also opportunity for more of the Scenario 2 type approach?