Thanks for this valuable datapoint, Siobhan. Your 25 applications competing with up to 1,200+ others suggests a potential epistemic disconnect between EAâs âtalent-constrainedâ narrative and current reality.
This gap might arise from legacy framing (what was true in EAâs early days persists, even as funding becomes the tighter constraint), organizational incentives (competitive hiring boosts prestige and applicant quality), ego protection (those who endured grueling processes need to believe their roles are uniquely high-impact), and information asymmetry (without published metrics, the community canât update on aggregate data). While technical AI safety roles might remain genuinely bottlenecked, generalizing from exceptions distorts the broader picture.
If this disconnect exists, the costs multiply: wasted human capital that could be earning-to-give or building skills elsewhere; reputational risks as rhetoric diverges from reality; and missed opportunities for orthogonal impact in other institutions where competition is lower but leverage might be higher.
Potential improvements include transparency first (organizations publishing basic metrics like applicants/âhires and time-to-fill to enable evidence-based updating), reframing career advice (explicitly elevating earning-to-give and paths outside traditional EA organizations as equally valid), and coordinating rather than competing (e.g., via âimpact portfoliosâ where community members diversify across approaches).
Hi Brad, thanks for offering your time and thoughts here.
Yes, well, I agree with youâand I think the reputation risk from, as you poetically put it, the divergence of rhetoric from reality, is a real danger to the movementâs credibility. Iâm getting words and whispers from people in my position who are feeling rather fed up and misled (but not airing that publicly on this post in case it hurts their chances, understandably!). Not getting a job you wanted is always disappointing, but itâs the misled aspect that carries the risk.
If 100â˛s of people would come away from job rejections with a sense, not that theyâve been out-competed, but misled, then the whole movement (which already relies on an ambitious brand mission of, well, saving the world) can quickly start to look⌠not credible anymore: not as rational or cost effective as it claims to be. Something you dabbled in when you were a student. A passing fancy, not a serious life philosophy or calling.
I donât want this to happen. I think EA is a fantastic movement and Iâd like very much to see it keep going from strength to strength. But the hiring situation has become quite unbalanced and I think the reputational risk is being overlooked.
Thanks for this valuable datapoint, Siobhan. Your 25 applications competing with up to 1,200+ others suggests a potential epistemic disconnect between EAâs âtalent-constrainedâ narrative and current reality.
This gap might arise from legacy framing (what was true in EAâs early days persists, even as funding becomes the tighter constraint), organizational incentives (competitive hiring boosts prestige and applicant quality), ego protection (those who endured grueling processes need to believe their roles are uniquely high-impact), and information asymmetry (without published metrics, the community canât update on aggregate data). While technical AI safety roles might remain genuinely bottlenecked, generalizing from exceptions distorts the broader picture.
If this disconnect exists, the costs multiply: wasted human capital that could be earning-to-give or building skills elsewhere; reputational risks as rhetoric diverges from reality; and missed opportunities for orthogonal impact in other institutions where competition is lower but leverage might be higher.
Potential improvements include transparency first (organizations publishing basic metrics like applicants/âhires and time-to-fill to enable evidence-based updating), reframing career advice (explicitly elevating earning-to-give and paths outside traditional EA organizations as equally valid), and coordinating rather than competing (e.g., via âimpact portfoliosâ where community members diversify across approaches).
Hi Brad, thanks for offering your time and thoughts here.
Yes, well, I agree with youâand I think the reputation risk from, as you poetically put it, the divergence of rhetoric from reality, is a real danger to the movementâs credibility. Iâm getting words and whispers from people in my position who are feeling rather fed up and misled (but not airing that publicly on this post in case it hurts their chances, understandably!). Not getting a job you wanted is always disappointing, but itâs the misled aspect that carries the risk.
If 100â˛s of people would come away from job rejections with a sense, not that theyâve been out-competed, but misled, then the whole movement (which already relies on an ambitious brand mission of, well, saving the world) can quickly start to look⌠not credible anymore: not as rational or cost effective as it claims to be. Something you dabbled in when you were a student. A passing fancy, not a serious life philosophy or calling.
I donât want this to happen. I think EA is a fantastic movement and Iâd like very much to see it keep going from strength to strength. But the hiring situation has become quite unbalanced and I think the reputational risk is being overlooked.