I have a couple of questions about the checklist you linked, though I’m not sure how strongly you endorse it.
First:
Is there a substantial amount of literature in your field?
and
Was there a major discovery in the field in recent years?
seem to be indicators of neglectedness, which might make the topics more appealing to EAs. Do you think these are better pursued outside of academia? Or not at all?
Second:
Do you want a career in academia?
Is there a better option for prospective PhD students who want a career in research outside of academia?
Some of the questions of the checklist, I would endorse more as guidelines, or warning signs than as strict rules.
Is there a substantial amount of literature in your field?
Was there a major discovery in the field in recent years?
Both those questions measure how much you can learn from others in academia. If you can’t take advantage of collogues, then going in to academia at all (even if you don’t intend to stay) will be lower value. So you might be more productive elsewhere.
The first one also says something about how easy/hard it will be to publish and generally get recognised. If you do something non-established, you will have a much harder time.
But there are two main reason you might want to step into academia anyway.
1) To influence other academics. (I think this is the main reason FLI chooses to be an academic institution.)
2) To get paid. (In cases where there are no other options.)
Do you want a career in academia?
Is there a better option for prospective PhD students who want a career in research outside of academia?
Lot’s of places out side academia does research. Companies, non-profits, think tanks, independent AI Safety researchers with Long Term Future Fund grants.
What is the better option depends on what research you want to do. The more abstract the more likely academia is a good choice. The more concrete the more likely it is not. E.g. charity evaluation is a type of research that I don’t think would do well in academia (though this is not my field at all, so I might be wrong).
Thanks for this post! I found it quite helpful.
I have a couple of questions about the checklist you linked, though I’m not sure how strongly you endorse it.
First:
and
seem to be indicators of neglectedness, which might make the topics more appealing to EAs. Do you think these are better pursued outside of academia? Or not at all?
Second:
Is there a better option for prospective PhD students who want a career in research outside of academia?
Some of the questions of the checklist, I would endorse more as guidelines, or warning signs than as strict rules.
Both those questions measure how much you can learn from others in academia. If you can’t take advantage of collogues, then going in to academia at all (even if you don’t intend to stay) will be lower value. So you might be more productive elsewhere.
The first one also says something about how easy/hard it will be to publish and generally get recognised. If you do something non-established, you will have a much harder time.
But there are two main reason you might want to step into academia anyway.
1) To influence other academics. (I think this is the main reason FLI chooses to be an academic institution.)
2) To get paid. (In cases where there are no other options.)
Lot’s of places out side academia does research. Companies, non-profits, think tanks, independent AI Safety researchers with Long Term Future Fund grants.
What is the better option depends on what research you want to do. The more abstract the more likely academia is a good choice. The more concrete the more likely it is not. E.g. charity evaluation is a type of research that I don’t think would do well in academia (though this is not my field at all, so I might be wrong).
Great response—thank you!