“EA is no longer agnostic about the answer to the question of how to do the most good.” I’m interested in this assertion—to what extent does it make sense to say that “EA” (the movement? Key organizations?) has taken a firm stance on the question of how the most good can be done? Is there pretty clear evidence of that, in your opinion? These matter to me quite a bit as someone who at present thinks that EA as a movement should provide epistemic tools and a community for people working on many important causes, AI safety amongst them.
I no longer tell people thinking about careers in an EA way to go to 80,000 hours. I tell them to go to Probably Good, that has taken over the foundational generalist career guidance work.
80k has narrowed itself into increasing irrelevance to broader-tent EA. I understand that there are reasons why they believe a specialist AI safety careers navigator is a better use of their time.
“EA is no longer agnostic about the answer to the question of how to do the most good.” I’m interested in this assertion—to what extent does it make sense to say that “EA” (the movement? Key organizations?) has taken a firm stance on the question of how the most good can be done? Is there pretty clear evidence of that, in your opinion? These matter to me quite a bit as someone who at present thinks that EA as a movement should provide epistemic tools and a community for people working on many important causes, AI safety amongst them.
At least the 80k pivot to narrow focus on AI seems to back this point.
I no longer tell people thinking about careers in an EA way to go to 80,000 hours. I tell them to go to Probably Good, that has taken over the foundational generalist career guidance work.
80k has narrowed itself into increasing irrelevance to broader-tent EA. I understand that there are reasons why they believe a specialist AI safety careers navigator is a better use of their time.