I like that (at least my part of) EA is a network of small projects. It makes it easier to take initiative and get things done. Also, the there are more support structure that you seem to think.
For context: I’m an AI Safety organiser, and independent researcher. I mainly work for AI Safety Camp but I’m also involved to a lesser degree in ~3 other field building projects.
These support systems include
Having a manager
Having colleagues to bounce ideas off/moral support
Having professional HR/operations support
Health insurance
Being an employee rather than a contractor/grant recipient that has to worry about receiving future funding (although there are similar concerns about being fired)
I have most of these, at least the ones I want.
I don’t have a manager and I don’t want one. I do acknowledge that some people would prefer having a manager, which is ok. However those jobs exists too.
I have lots of colleagues to bunce ideas off and get moral support. Most of them are not working on the same small project, but this is not a problem. We’re still there for each other.
I have access to HR/operations support to some extent. There are orgs that specialise on fiscal sponsorship. Although I’d be happy for this support to be expanded.
I have health insurance. I live in Europe, so this is taken care of by the government, it’s great. The US should try it. Although being serious, this seems important to solve. But this could be solved via employment-as-a-service, with out power centralisation.
This last point is a drawback.
There are many types of centralisation, and they don’t necessarily have to go together. If you count the number or legal orgs in EA, there will be fewer than you would naively think, since a lot or orgs are sharing their legal and administrative back-end, while outward operating as separate project, with separate names, logos and webpages.
I’m against power centralisation, i.e. fewer bosses are telling more people what to do. But I’m in favour of legal/admin centralisation, i.e. fewer set of legal/administrative entities are serving more projects.
Grater power centralisation would lead to less duplication of projects, but it would also lead to much fewer things getting done in general. I don’t know exactly how to argue for this, because this is mainly a empirical observation. But in my experience, a pear network, where everyone is fee and encourage to take initiative and start new projects with out having to ask their boss for permission, is just waaaaay more efficient, than something more centralised.
I am not arguing for maximal decentralisation, where everyone is working on their own. I think small teams of around 3-7 people are often ideal. That’s also large enough groups for people who want to have a boss can have one.
A note on independent researches, I think many of them do work closely with other researchers in practice, but I this is mostly my guess. If a lot of people are doing research alone and would like colleges, I think helping people find collaborators would be great. Bu especially in research, there is no need to work for the same org, in order to collaborate.
Lack of financial security is a real problem. I would not personally want to trade more security for less freedom, and there are potential solutions where I don’t have too, if the funders are on board. I would love there to be a system where if you’ve done good work for some length of time you get a grant lasting for 3 years to just “keep up the good work”. I do understand why funders would hesitate do give such a grant, but I think it would be worth it.
I like that (at least my part of) EA is a network of small projects. It makes it easier to take initiative and get things done. Also, the there are more support structure that you seem to think.
For context: I’m an AI Safety organiser, and independent researcher. I mainly work for AI Safety Camp but I’m also involved to a lesser degree in ~3 other field building projects.
I have most of these, at least the ones I want.
I don’t have a manager and I don’t want one. I do acknowledge that some people would prefer having a manager, which is ok. However those jobs exists too.
I have lots of colleagues to bunce ideas off and get moral support. Most of them are not working on the same small project, but this is not a problem. We’re still there for each other.
I have access to HR/operations support to some extent. There are orgs that specialise on fiscal sponsorship. Although I’d be happy for this support to be expanded.
I have health insurance. I live in Europe, so this is taken care of by the government, it’s great. The US should try it. Although being serious, this seems important to solve. But this could be solved via employment-as-a-service, with out power centralisation.
This last point is a drawback.
There are many types of centralisation, and they don’t necessarily have to go together. If you count the number or legal orgs in EA, there will be fewer than you would naively think, since a lot or orgs are sharing their legal and administrative back-end, while outward operating as separate project, with separate names, logos and webpages.
I’m against power centralisation, i.e. fewer bosses are telling more people what to do. But I’m in favour of legal/admin centralisation, i.e. fewer set of legal/administrative entities are serving more projects.
Grater power centralisation would lead to less duplication of projects, but it would also lead to much fewer things getting done in general. I don’t know exactly how to argue for this, because this is mainly a empirical observation. But in my experience, a pear network, where everyone is fee and encourage to take initiative and start new projects with out having to ask their boss for permission, is just waaaaay more efficient, than something more centralised.
I am not arguing for maximal decentralisation, where everyone is working on their own. I think small teams of around 3-7 people are often ideal. That’s also large enough groups for people who want to have a boss can have one.
A note on independent researches, I think many of them do work closely with other researchers in practice, but I this is mostly my guess. If a lot of people are doing research alone and would like colleges, I think helping people find collaborators would be great. Bu especially in research, there is no need to work for the same org, in order to collaborate.
Lack of financial security is a real problem. I would not personally want to trade more security for less freedom, and there are potential solutions where I don’t have too, if the funders are on board. I would love there to be a system where if you’ve done good work for some length of time you get a grant lasting for 3 years to just “keep up the good work”. I do understand why funders would hesitate do give such a grant, but I think it would be worth it.