Thank you for this. I found it very helpful, for instance, because it gave me some insight into which audiences are currently perceived as being most valuable to engage by leaders in the AI safety and governance communities.
As I mentioned in my series of posts about AI safety movement building, I would like to see a larger and more detailed version of this survey.
Without going into too much detail, I basically want more uncertainty reducing and behavior prompting information. Information that I think will help to coordinate the broader AI safety community to do things that benefit themselves and the community. Obviously a larger sample would be much better.
For instance, I would like to understand which approaches to growing the community are perceived as particularly positive and particularly negative, and why. I want people with the potential to reach and engage potentially valuable audiences to better understand the good ways/​programs etc to on board new people into the community. So we get more of what organizations and leaders think are good programs or good approaches and less of the bad.
I’d like to know what number of different roles organizations plan to hire. Like is it the case that these organizations collectively expect to hire 10 information security experts, or do they think it’s important and want someone else to fund that work? Someone who works in information security might be very likely to attempt a career transition if they expect job opportunities but this doesn’t quite demonstrate that. I would like it to be the case that someone considering the possibility of a stressful and risky career transition into AIS has the best possible information they can have about the probability that they will get a role and be useful in the AI safety community.
In my experience many people find the AI safety opportunity landscape is extremely complex and confusing and this probably filters out a significant portion of good candidates who don’t have time to figure out and be secure in pursuing options that we probably want them to take. More work like this, if effectively disseminated, could make their decisions and actions easier and better.
Thank you for this. I found it very helpful, for instance, because it gave me some insight into which audiences are currently perceived as being most valuable to engage by leaders in the AI safety and governance communities.
As I mentioned in my series of posts about AI safety movement building, I would like to see a larger and more detailed version of this survey.
Without going into too much detail, I basically want more uncertainty reducing and behavior prompting information. Information that I think will help to coordinate the broader AI safety community to do things that benefit themselves and the community. Obviously a larger sample would be much better.
For instance, I would like to understand which approaches to growing the community are perceived as particularly positive and particularly negative, and why. I want people with the potential to reach and engage potentially valuable audiences to better understand the good ways/​programs etc to on board new people into the community. So we get more of what organizations and leaders think are good programs or good approaches and less of the bad.
I’d like to know what number of different roles organizations plan to hire. Like is it the case that these organizations collectively expect to hire 10 information security experts, or do they think it’s important and want someone else to fund that work? Someone who works in information security might be very likely to attempt a career transition if they expect job opportunities but this doesn’t quite demonstrate that. I would like it to be the case that someone considering the possibility of a stressful and risky career transition into AIS has the best possible information they can have about the probability that they will get a role and be useful in the AI safety community.
In my experience many people find the AI safety opportunity landscape is extremely complex and confusing and this probably filters out a significant portion of good candidates who don’t have time to figure out and be secure in pursuing options that we probably want them to take. More work like this, if effectively disseminated, could make their decisions and actions easier and better.