Gaurav Yadav
Yadav
Karma: 1,064
Sure—I am not per se bothered that much by AI speak. It seems like a reasonable trade-off.
Hot take; ultimately this is not a hill I want to die on, and overall I think Bluedot Impact is good for the world. Having interacted with some of the people there, they seem lovely and I don’t want to burn bridges. But I’ve found some of their recent marketing on their website and LinkedIn somewhat aesthetically cringe. It feels like it’s trying very hard to cater to a kind of tech-bro/Silicon Valley speech. Maybe this is working for them, but I can’t help feeling icked by it, and it makes me lose a bit of faith in the project.
For eg, in hiring for a new tech lead role they have an accompanying blog post that says: “We’re hiring for a Tech Lead. Meet Carol, our ideal candidate.”
Meet Carol, a senior engineer at a Series B startup that’s losing its way. Multiple years experience, previously built 0-to-1 at a failed startup and has multiple side projects others are using. Could make £200k+ at FAANG but chooses impact over money.
“I’m tired of building things nobody cares about. I want to ship things that matter, fast, with people who give a shit.” – Carol, probablyOutcome obsessed, not code precious. Will happily torch 3 months of work if something better emerges. Measures success by user impact, not lines shipped
Post-failure wisdom. Has startup scar tissue. Been sold dreams that evaporated. Now has pattern recognition for what’s real vs what’s venture theatre
Full-stack ownership. Talks to users, analyses data, mocks designs, writes docs. Allergic to “that’s not my job”
Speed fundamentalist—Ships to real users fast. Viscerally hates bureaucracy, long meetings, permission-seeking culture
What They Want
Real users, real impact. “I want to ship something on Monday and see 1000 people use it by Friday”
Clear line to survival. Not another pre-PMF prayer circle. Evidence of traction, revenue, or at minimum a brutally honest path to it.
Mission that matters. Not another ad-tech optimisation tool or crypto dashboard that makes the world slightly worse.
Speedy by default. Where “let’s just try it” beats “let’s have another meeting about it”
What They’ll Trade
Will grind when it matters—Happy to pull long hours for launches, crises, or breakthrough moments. Not for theatre
Will learn anything useful—New stack? Fine. New domain? Fine. As long as it’s not resume-driven development
Will work with ambiguity—But not chaos. There’s a difference between startup scrappiness and headless chicken syndrome
This also reads a bit like how LLMs write.
I can’t put images via comments, but I saw this on a dance floor yesterday and thought it was cute and fitting!
I realise this is not actually what the spirt of the post is about, but: Some people have asked me to consider going back to earning-to-give—why is that? Seems like you have quite a bit of impact working at METR.
Not stepping on bugs
My kids won’t be workers
Notes and updates on GPT-5
(Linkpost) METR: Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity
Just worth pointing out because it was not obvious to me—the house could add it back, we will still have to wait to see if that happens but seems unlikely.
Good news! The 10-year AI moratorium on state legislation has been removed from the budget bill.
The Senate voted 99-1 to strike the provision. Senator Blackburn, who originally supported the moratorium, proposed the amendment to remove it after concluding her compromise exemptions wouldn’t work.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-senate-strikes-ai-regulation-085758901.html?guccounter=1
Agree with this. Some relevant reading for people:
Peter Wildeford’s recent post giving an update on what’s happening: https://peterwildeford.substack.com/p/congress-has-started-taking-agi-more
Jack Clark’s testimony: https://x.com/jackclarkSF/status/1937932459171348757
My reflections on doing a research fellowship
How I feel about AI consciousness
Most good AI Governance takes are not on the EA Forum, or Lesswrong. They exist on Substack! (and on X where they get reposted and turned into threads). You should consider exploring the AI Governance substack space more. Some examples: Anton Leicht—Threading the Needle; Miles Brundage.
EDIT: I did not read the entire thing and now realise the author of this post said the same. I will still keep my feelings around this public.
Hmm. This seems like a strange thing to work towards? Perhaps even harmful. Is this not just trying to push SOTA?
(Perhaps strange is not the right word to use here. I could see many reasons why you would want to do this, but I guess I had the intuition that people at Epoch would not want to do this).
I’ve been meaning to write about what it’s like trying to figure out your career direction between 18 and 21 while being part of the EA community—a time that feels, at least for me, like the most uncertain and exploratory part of life. You’re not just asking yourself what you want to do, but also grappling with questions about impact and doing the most good, which adds another hard layer to an already complex period.
For anyone at university who’s getting introduced to EA and feeling overwhelmed about career decisions, I feel like I want to share some thoughts. I’ve been there—feeling unsure about whether I was making the “right” choices or if I was doing enough to have impact. I’ve seen others around that age wrestle with the same questions. I still wrestle with my impact. You have my empathy.
If that’s where you are right now, maybe a few scattered pieces of advice from someone a little further down the road could help. I won’t turn this into a long essay, but if any of this resonates—or if you want more specific guidance—I’d be happy to expand on these thoughts:
1. 80,000 Hours is not gospel: Of course, they don’t claim to be gospel, and explicitly want you to explore different options in your career and provide tools for you to do the thinking. But it’s very easy to just default to their listed career options and cause areas. 80,000 Hours won’t help you make the right choices if you aren’t willing to accept that it’s just one piece of your career puzzle. Most people don’t just end up working on what they want by default, unfortunately.
2. Think beyond conventional impact paths: On that note, if something doesn’t fit neatly into how a typical EA career pans out, that might feel uncomfortable. But that’s okay—outside this community, people do all sorts of things in the world. Going to university doesn’t automatically prepare you for AI policy work or give you operations skills. You’ll probably need to get experience in the outside world that isn’t an EA career path, and that can be hard if all you’ve consumed at university is EA philosophy and its traditional career paths. This is why not pigeon-holing yourself is a good idea (see point 4).3. Get ready for ego hits: Yes, there’s plenty written about how EA jobs are hard to get, but lots of jobs that seem shiny and potentially useful for career capital will reject you—because you’re not the only one who wants that shiny job. You might get lucky and end up right where you want to be, but you’re probably just like everybody else: inexperienced and trying to make it in the world. Each job application can take weeks of effort. You can make it to interview rounds, all excited about the possibility of doing something you want, only to be rejected because someone else has 10 years more experience than you. This will happen, and it will be hard. You just have to get back up and try again. I found it useful to remind myself every time I got rejected that ‘they can reject me, but they can’t kill my spirit’—and that helped muster up the motivation to push forward.
4. Don’t let EA become your whole life: I switched my degree to be very AI Governance focused (which maybe is paying off), made EA friends, went to EA retreats. It’s so enticing because the university EA community tends to be interesting, thoughtful, and ambitious—that’s pleasant to be around and can mean your life gets wrapped up in it. Getting invited to EA Global conferences in the Bay Area when you’re a twenty-year-old at university hits that status-seeking part of your brain hard. People think it’s really cool, and it feels good when they do. I wish I could say I was above caring what others think, but my brain (like most people’s) is wired to chase social validation at times. While there’s plenty of advice out there about letting go of status-seeking—and you should definitely work on that—I think it’s important to acknowledge how these dynamics can pull you deeper into making EA your whole identity. I strongly suggest building yourself in other communities and finding interests outside the movement. This advice might seem obvious to any adult, but when you’re at university finding your people, and those people happen to offer both intellectual stimulation and status boosts, it’s really easy to stick to the comfortable option.
5. Don’t dismiss grades—they’re part of the bigger picture: I absorbed some wrong advice about grades not mattering through the rationality community. But they do matter: not just for masters applications, but as a signal to employers about your ability to work hard and follow through. Even if EA jobs don’t always list grade requirements, having good grades demonstrates competence and work ethic. More importantly, engaging deeply with your subject teaches you how to tackle difficult problems and work systematically—skills that matter regardless of where you end up. And actually trying with your degree and doing well can make university a much more pleasant experience.
Hope that’s useful to somebody.
PauseAI seem funding constraint—probably needs more runway for returns to be seen on their work
]
Nice! I’m down in Sheffield during points, would love to visit when I am around!
It surprises me that this is seen as the norm—it feels almost antithetical to having impact if you never talk about what you’re doing. At the same time, a lot of EA orgs seem to have put serious effort into marketing in recent years (GWWC, 80k, EA Globals, etc.), and I think that’s good.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s bad to talk about what you’re doing. My concern is more subjective—it’s about the style of marketing. Some of it mimics a kind of entrepreneurial/tech-speak that I personally find aversive. That might just be because this creates an association with Silicon Valley’s culture that has driven AI progress in risky ways, so I react strongly to the vibe. But ultimately, Bluedot may be right that this style resonates with the people they want to hire. If so, great—I’m very open to the idea that my subjective reaction doesn’t line up with what’s impactful.
Re: ‘We should be celebrating organisations that are making an effort on this and encouraging others to do more’ — sure, though I think we may be talking past each other. I agree marketing is important: your ideas won’t have much effect if nobody knows about them. But I’m not for default celebration. Sometimes marketing is misleading, manipulative, or just feels icky, and the value really depends on the context. I’m much more inclined to celebrate marketing that pushes in the direction of truth-seeking. Too often, marketing goes the opposite way. (That’s a general comment, not aimed at Bluedot specifically or any other EA-adjacement org for that matter.)