I am a CompE and math double major at UMBC. I am interested in working on medical devices and am interested in starting a for-profit startup. This startup would hopefully work on both direct impact and allow money for donations (see here).
I am also considering a PhD or Masters in Biomedical engineering, computer engineering, or electrical engineering.
I hope this isn’t a prediction of someone in EA...
In case of developing technologies for general near term harm, one needs to look at the effects their technology is having on the customers and others affected. But, as with all technology, there can be good and bad uses of it. In regard to existential risk, it is hard to know ahead of time what will cause existential risk. Humans are already bad at predicting the future and we can’t expect to stop all technological progress for the sake of some microscopic existential risk not measured empirically. It would be better to have a educated society that is ready to work towards difficult problems at the drop of a hat if it poses a risk to humanity. We have done things in the past to a lesser scale such as the Manhattan project and WWII innovation more generally along with COVID vaccines coming in 1 year instead of the most optimistic prediction at the time of 4 years. Technology in general still has a very high EV in my book.
Okay Thanks! The link will be added.
It is true that there will be divergence in recourses if profit and impact don’t correlate strongly. In the other resources section for more about profitability, see this here. I would generally advise against the optimization of 2 goals at the same time, but when the mission of the company is aligned either by selling to the beneficiaries or when a technology correlates with a better product and good outcomes (Tesla with EVs), or customers internalize the cost of current products (Tesla customers want green cars), the 2 become aligned. SpaceX is finding how to establish a mars base by selling launch services and internet with the same rockets.
Not all organizations can be for-profit, but when it is possible, it can lead to much bigger growth. One can innovate from high cost to lower cost (such as Tesla). Also middle income countries may have enough for moderate spending. Each business will face the problem and have the learn about the specifics of the situation to know where they can make money and make sure it is aligned with their mission. Not all direct-impact for-profit companies are selling to the poor. Take lab-grown meat, there is potentially a large group of the global rich who would be the first customers.
There should still be non-profits, but my thesis was that direct-impact for-profits are underrated, not that all non-profits should start for-profits. If they have the possibility and it would lead to higher impact, then they should. If one can start something like one of the companies mentioned, or Tesla or SpaceX, then there should be a good bit of attention paid to it in EA, rather than just small non-profits. We can then compare starting/joining a startup that serves a smaller problem but grows naturally vs a non-profit that is serving a large problem but isn’t guaranteed to grow and relient on donors. In the FTX case, I don’t know how many non-profits went out of business because of it, but it could happen again (due to fraud or otherwise).
Thanks for the comment!
I would worry about moral issues and EA image issues by implementing EA ideas in these companies. I was talking about being a great engineer/manager that increases the level of innovation that aligns with the company’s mission. The employees could convince their manager or upper management of certain issues relating to EA, but it is important for them not to try to hijack their company for EA goals against their company’s wishes.
Edit: also see here from the other resources section about what makes a startup high impact. Counterfactual impact is important to consider and the consumer surplus of the product.
Thanks for the comment. You are right that large for-profit Non-EA companies can be better than the direct-impact for-profit companies I wrote about. Whatever the best decision for impact is, one should look at all of their options and decide which is best. Arguably Tesla was started with the intention of doing good (like most of the EA startups mentioned) and Apple wasn’t focused as much on the “social good” rather the good to consumers and business (which is still good but not a focused social thesis). EA doesn’t talk much about working for already large EA-esqe companies, such as Tesla, Neuralink, Spacex, etc. There could be alot of good to be done as an engineer or manager at one of those companies.
I was just looking for someone like you. I’m not a training medical professional, but I have thought about working on medical devices. I am currently a Computer engineering and Math double major in undergrad. Do you know of any opportunities for that? Any companies currently working on it? Grad programs or books on the subject? Thanks!
Is this a thought exercise for figuring out what I would find engagement in?
A better question would be my effectiveness rather than my passion. How much more effective would I have to be in other cause areas and low in alignment related skills such that it would be good to select other activities (or vis versa)? Over time, I can keep asking the questions with new information.
I have been through the 80,000 career guide before. I want to be a for-profit startup founder in an area with a I can move over to CS and Math double major early and focus on ML and ML related research in undergrad. Since it is competitive, especially at top schools, knowing early is better than later. I mostly agree, but disagree a little bit with some of the career capital advice. I think they speak a little too broadly about transferable skills. I don’t think I should spend the first 5-10 years of my life tangently related to what I want to do to “build general skills” (unless it is very necessary for what I want to do).
One can build general skills and pursue their original goals at the same time. Startup founders can start pretty young (and there is no correlation between age and success, by the book Super Founders) and still be find in connections and fundraising. There is a risk of getting swept up in what others are doing and forgetting EA and just continue as a regular FAANG/consultant employee. I do plan to look at different potential problem causes during college and keep in mind that there is a risk of pigeonholing too much. But the advantage of pointing in the direction of what I want to do is better than pretending that I can’t do any exploring and go a “general college grad route”.
I wasn’t proposing that “follow your passion” was the other idea I was going with. I do think that some combination of personal interest and external importance will probably be highest utility for a given personality. I just wanted to make sure that AGI alignment wasn’t so great that I would have to practically throw away my feelings for humanity’s existence. I have also read a recent post questioning the basis of the “recommended careers” in EA and 80k hours (post). Thanks for the post!
Establishing the culture / mission of the organization around the success of the social good (which is easier for customers as benefactors) instead of just increasing profits as much as possible.
This is an interesting post:
Towards effective entrepreneurship: what makes a startup high-impact?
Here may be a better question: Would you estimate that robotics is a good field to go into for for profit entrepreneurship that tries to make a direct impact?
Any resources from the previous questions would also be helpful, thank you!
Hi Michael,
I am also familiar with Peter Thiel’s idea about secrets. In Zero to One, he also talks about building and maintaining a monopoly using defenses to entry. He talks about building network effects, economies of scale, intellectual property, and brand. Do any or all of these hurt the overall good?
This is focused on the consumer side of things, not the third party benefactors. Though if you do find any of these often negatively affect third parties, please say so.
Economies of scale and network effects of a market makes it economical to have the large majority of production in a small number of hands. So long as the consumer sees some of that benefit either through lower prices or a better product, there is an increase in the overall good for the consumer to have a monopoly.
With intellectual property, you mentioned Tesla’s innovation being a public good due to their open patents. To my knowledge Tesla is still protected by generally a high level of innovation, economies of scale, and brand. Could one justify having closed patents if the patents drive higher profits which helps the company grow and innovate further?
I know Nike has patents for their green material for shoes, but licenses their patents to non-competitors to not stop their creation. What situations would the Nike method or Tesla method best benefit the public good?
Brand is a little more subjective, but things like fashion brands which have value because they are known to be expensive may be a public loss. A brand built on reliability, quality, or trust, if accurate, allows consumers to more reliably select the best product for them by providing more accurate information to the public.
As Peter Thiel says, if we don’t have a monopoly, the profits will be driven to effectively zero and the ability to innovate decreases (look at legacy car makers). In an efficient market, maximizing profits will maximize total well-being. In reality, there is corporate responsibility and this post covered some of it. How should we think about barriers to entry using EA? Thanks alot for the original post!
I can’t find a book, but articles about Norman Borlaug (creator of semi-dwarf wheat) may be high counterfactual.