Other reasons to do (at least some) direct work sooner:
1. In order to build a movement, you have to have something to build the movement around. If you do actually interesting research, you can attract people who are interested in that research. If you just talk about doing research, you attract people who like to talk about research. I really think there’s something to be said to just tackling something that looks important, trying to do a good job, and seeing who joins you and where it ends up, rather than thinking meta-meta about how best to go about it for a long time. That said, I also see high value in thinking hard for a long time, but I contend that you need both together, to bounce ideas off each other, rather than only sitting in an armchair for 10 years. This ties into the next point...
2. Doing concrete research can teach you things no amount of abstract theorizing would have. It’s like the philosophy behind agile development: Rather than making a grand plan, try some stuff, see how it works, get acquainted with the situation on the ground, and then figure out where to go next. I think it’s useful to get a little bit of deep knowledge of a topic in addition to more shallow knowledge, in order to calibrate your picture of things. It’s similar to the reason philosophy courses have you actually read Plato and Hobbes rather than just reading other people talk about them. You get a special kind of understanding by seeing things up close.
3. Lots of things could happen between now and later. Your movement might disband. You might lose interest. You might decide you want to spend time on something non-altruism related. And so on. It can be good to take advantage of what you have when you have it.
Finally, a last point that can go either way depending on the circumstances is
4. Comparative advantage: If you’re an awesome AI researcher, you should probably do direct AI work, not movement-building, and the opposite if you’re an awesome evangelist.
Sorry, I see you already mentioned a few of these points in the piece.
Yes, I think part of the reason to get hands-on is instrumental, but I think the direct value of doing so is relevant too. Eventually someone has to do the work, and while I do think the value of an EA’s labor is often higher than that of other smart people, I don’t think it’s vastly higher. At some point, somebody needs to do the work. I think it’s often good to try some stuff now, see how the situation looks, and then keep working on the more promising areas. That investigation work is not wasted if it’s shared publicly. As long as you don’t get mired too long in a highly narrow focus, you should be ok.
These are useful considerations, Toby. :)
Other reasons to do (at least some) direct work sooner:
1. In order to build a movement, you have to have something to build the movement around. If you do actually interesting research, you can attract people who are interested in that research. If you just talk about doing research, you attract people who like to talk about research. I really think there’s something to be said to just tackling something that looks important, trying to do a good job, and seeing who joins you and where it ends up, rather than thinking meta-meta about how best to go about it for a long time. That said, I also see high value in thinking hard for a long time, but I contend that you need both together, to bounce ideas off each other, rather than only sitting in an armchair for 10 years. This ties into the next point...
2. Doing concrete research can teach you things no amount of abstract theorizing would have. It’s like the philosophy behind agile development: Rather than making a grand plan, try some stuff, see how it works, get acquainted with the situation on the ground, and then figure out where to go next. I think it’s useful to get a little bit of deep knowledge of a topic in addition to more shallow knowledge, in order to calibrate your picture of things. It’s similar to the reason philosophy courses have you actually read Plato and Hobbes rather than just reading other people talk about them. You get a special kind of understanding by seeing things up close.
3. Lots of things could happen between now and later. Your movement might disband. You might lose interest. You might decide you want to spend time on something non-altruism related. And so on. It can be good to take advantage of what you have when you have it.
Finally, a last point that can go either way depending on the circumstances is
4. Comparative advantage: If you’re an awesome AI researcher, you should probably do direct AI work, not movement-building, and the opposite if you’re an awesome evangelist.
Sorry, I see you already mentioned a few of these points in the piece.
Yes, I think part of the reason to get hands-on is instrumental, but I think the direct value of doing so is relevant too. Eventually someone has to do the work, and while I do think the value of an EA’s labor is often higher than that of other smart people, I don’t think it’s vastly higher. At some point, somebody needs to do the work. I think it’s often good to try some stuff now, see how the situation looks, and then keep working on the more promising areas. That investigation work is not wasted if it’s shared publicly. As long as you don’t get mired too long in a highly narrow focus, you should be ok.