(Background: Have worked in trading since late 2013, with one ~18 month gap. Have also spoken to >5 people facing a decision similar to this one over the years. This is a set of points I often end up making. I’m moderately confident about each statement below but wouldn’t be surprised if one of them is wrong.)
I think both of these paths are very ‘spiky’, in the sense that I think the top 10% has many times more impact (either via donations or direct work) than the median. From a pure altruistic perspective, I think you mostly want to maximise the chance of spiking.
One of the best ways to maximise this is to be able to switch after you realise you aren’t in that category; in trading I think you’re likely to have a good sense of your appoximate path within 2-4 years, so in the likely even that you are not hitting the high end at that point you have an opportunity to switch, if your alternate allows you to switch (often but certainly not always the case). Similarly, I’d try to work out what flexibility you have on the AI PhD path; if you do in fact find the day-to-day frustrating and decide to quit in order to avoid burnout, what are your options? If you can switch either way, that’s great and this largely ceases to be an important consideration.
On a related note, and echoing some others, 2-4 years undoubtedly sounds like a long time now but it’s actually a pretty small fraction of your career. Don’t feel like a ‘bad’ choice now will forever condemn you to an inferior path! Any choice that does actually lock you in this way is probably a bad choice for that reason alone, but again usually this feels like it is the case more than it is actually the case.
Some people underestimate quant trading earnings at top-tier firms, because the firms are extremely cagey about them. FWIW, I think >$1m annual earnings within 5-10 years is more like the 40th-80th percentile case depending on firm, while the ‘spike’ case pushes into >$5m within their first decade. That’s for trading. Software engineer earnings at these firms I have a weaker sense of; they can either essentially match the traders or fall significantly behind (I don’t currently know of a case where it runs ahead); this depends heavily on the specific firm.
Predicting what you’re more likely to spike in advance is hard, and is going to be a question of personal fit, so difficult for us to answer, I just think that’s the right question. That said, there are some things in your post that make me think AI is more likely to be your life’s work:
I know E2G is high impact but sometimes it doesn’t feel that way; definitely feel like a sell out ....
Intellectually interesting; kind of a dream career
Sometimes people feel things like the above and assume everyone else feels the same way. As someone who has heard both pro-E2G and pro-AI versions of all of these points, the one thing I’m confident of is that this is not the case. As a community, there are worse ways we could coordinate this than having all the people who are more excited on a gut level about working at quant firms do that, and all the people who are more excited about working on AI do that. I do think there are more of the latter than the former, but that’s ok; one person E2G-ing at that level (especially if they spike) can fund many other people doing direct work.
The above is all written from a ‘For the Greater Good’ perspective. It sounds like a lot of what is pulling you towards quant work is that it’s the safe, already-available, almost-certainly-going-to-work-out-well-for-you-personally option. This is a reasonable thing to pay attention to! Just how much attention depends on things like your general level of financial security, do you have or expect to have dependents or other major family committments, how wide/​deep is your career path if a particular opportunity goes away, what kinds of backup (e.g. parents you could move in with) do you have, etc. Try not to assume things will work out ok, but equally try not to assume one bad call will end it all if you have layers of protection. This is incredibly variable by individual, and most EA advice is calibrated for young people who are pretty secure, don’t have large external obligations, and have solid backup. This in turn strongly points to taking a higher-than-usual level of risk in your altruistically-motivated endeavours. If that’s you, then great. If not, it might be worth some reflection about to what extent you can afford to, e.g. aim for the PhD and fail.
(Background: Have worked in trading since late 2013, with one ~18 month gap. Have also spoken to >5 people facing a decision similar to this one over the years. This is a set of points I often end up making. I’m moderately confident about each statement below but wouldn’t be surprised if one of them is wrong.)
I think both of these paths are very ‘spiky’, in the sense that I think the top 10% has many times more impact (either via donations or direct work) than the median. From a pure altruistic perspective, I think you mostly want to maximise the chance of spiking.
One of the best ways to maximise this is to be able to switch after you realise you aren’t in that category; in trading I think you’re likely to have a good sense of your appoximate path within 2-4 years, so in the likely even that you are not hitting the high end at that point you have an opportunity to switch, if your alternate allows you to switch (often but certainly not always the case). Similarly, I’d try to work out what flexibility you have on the AI PhD path; if you do in fact find the day-to-day frustrating and decide to quit in order to avoid burnout, what are your options? If you can switch either way, that’s great and this largely ceases to be an important consideration.
On a related note, and echoing some others, 2-4 years undoubtedly sounds like a long time now but it’s actually a pretty small fraction of your career. Don’t feel like a ‘bad’ choice now will forever condemn you to an inferior path! Any choice that does actually lock you in this way is probably a bad choice for that reason alone, but again usually this feels like it is the case more than it is actually the case.
Some people underestimate quant trading earnings at top-tier firms, because the firms are extremely cagey about them. FWIW, I think >$1m annual earnings within 5-10 years is more like the 40th-80th percentile case depending on firm, while the ‘spike’ case pushes into >$5m within their first decade. That’s for trading. Software engineer earnings at these firms I have a weaker sense of; they can either essentially match the traders or fall significantly behind (I don’t currently know of a case where it runs ahead); this depends heavily on the specific firm.
Predicting what you’re more likely to spike in advance is hard, and is going to be a question of personal fit, so difficult for us to answer, I just think that’s the right question. That said, there are some things in your post that make me think AI is more likely to be your life’s work:
Sometimes people feel things like the above and assume everyone else feels the same way. As someone who has heard both pro-E2G and pro-AI versions of all of these points, the one thing I’m confident of is that this is not the case. As a community, there are worse ways we could coordinate this than having all the people who are more excited on a gut level about working at quant firms do that, and all the people who are more excited about working on AI do that. I do think there are more of the latter than the former, but that’s ok; one person E2G-ing at that level (especially if they spike) can fund many other people doing direct work.
The above is all written from a ‘For the Greater Good’ perspective. It sounds like a lot of what is pulling you towards quant work is that it’s the safe, already-available, almost-certainly-going-to-work-out-well-for-you-personally option. This is a reasonable thing to pay attention to! Just how much attention depends on things like your general level of financial security, do you have or expect to have dependents or other major family committments, how wide/​deep is your career path if a particular opportunity goes away, what kinds of backup (e.g. parents you could move in with) do you have, etc. Try not to assume things will work out ok, but equally try not to assume one bad call will end it all if you have layers of protection. This is incredibly variable by individual, and most EA advice is calibrated for young people who are pretty secure, don’t have large external obligations, and have solid backup. This in turn strongly points to taking a higher-than-usual level of risk in your altruistically-motivated endeavours. If that’s you, then great. If not, it might be worth some reflection about to what extent you can afford to, e.g. aim for the PhD and fail.