GCR capacity-building grantmaking and projects at Open Phil.
Eli Rose
Karma: 1,833
Similar to that of our other roles, plus experience running a university group as an obvious one — I also think that extroversion and proactive communication are somewhat more important for these roles than for others.
Going to punt on this one as I’m not quite sure what is meant by “systems.”
This is too big to summarize here, unfortunately.
Check out “what kinds of qualities are you looking for in a hire” here. My sense is we index less on previous experience than many other organizations (though it’s still important). Experience juggling many tasks, prioritize, and syncing up with stakeholders jumps to mind. I have a hypothesis that consultant experience would be helpful for this role, but that’s a bit conjectural.
This is a bit TBD — happy to chat more further down the pipeline with any interested candidates.
We look for this in work tests and in previous experience.
The CB team continuously evaluates the track record of grants we’ve made when they’re up for renewal, and this feeds into our sense of how good programs are overall. We also spend a lot of time keeping up with what’s happening in CB and in x-risk generally, and this feeds into our picture of how well CB projects are working.
Check out “what kinds of qualities are you looking for in a hire” here.
Same answer as 2.
Empirically, in hiring rounds I’ve previously been involved in for my team at Open Phil, it has often seemed to be the case that if the top 1-3 candidates just vanished, we wouldn’t make a hire. I’ve also observed hiring rounds that concluded with zero hires. So, basically I dispute the premise that the top applicants will be similar in terms of quality (as judged by OP).
I’m sympathetic to the take “that seems pretty weird.” It might be that Open Phil is making a mistake here, e.g. by having too high a bar. My unconfident best-guess would be that our bar has been somewhat too high in the past, though this is speaking just for myself. I think when you have a lot of strategic uncertainty, as GCR teams often do, that pushes towards a higher hiring bar as you need people who have a wide variety of skills.
I’d probably also gently push back against the notion that our hiring pool is extremely deep, though that’s obviously relative. I think e.g. our TAIS roles will likely get many fewer applicants than roles for similar applicants doing safety research at labs, for a mix of reasons including salience to relevant people and the fact that OP isn’t competitive with labs on salary.
(As of right now, TAIS has only gotten 53 applicants across all its roles since the ad went up, vs. governance which has gotten ~2x as many — though a lot of people tend to apply right around the deadline.)
Thanks for the reply.
I think “don’t work on climate change[1] if it would trade off against helping one currently identifiable person with a strong need” is a really bizarre/undesirable conclusion for a moral theory to come to, since if widely adopted it seems like this would lead to no one being left to work on climate change. The prospective climate change scientists would instead earn-to-give for AMF.
- ^
Or bettering relations between countries to prevent war, or preventing the rise of a totalitarian regime, etc.
- ^
Moreover, it’s common to assume that efforts to reduce the risk of extinction might reduce it by one basis point—i.e., 1⁄10,000. So, multiplying through, we are talking about quite low probabilities. Of course, the probability that any particular poor child will die due to malaria may be very low as well, but the probability of making a difference is quite high. So, on a per-individual basis, which is what matters given contractualism, donating to AMF-like interventions looks good.
It seems like a society where everyone took contractualism to heart might have a hard time coordinating on any large moral issues where the difference any one individual makes is small, including non-x-risk ones like climate change or preventing great power war. What does the contractualist position recommend on these issues?
(In climate change, it’s plausibly the case that “every little bit helps,” while in preventing war between great powers outcomes seem much more discontinuous — not sure if this matters.)
So, it may be true that some x-risk-oriented interventions can help us all avoid a premature death due to a global catastrophe; maybe they can help ensure that many future people come into existence. But how strong is any individual’s claim to your help to avoid an x-risk or to come into existence? Even if future people matter as much as present people (i.e., even if we assume that totalism is true), the answer is: Not strong at all, as you should discount it by the expected size of the benefit and you don’t aggregate benefits across persons. Since any given future person only has an infinitesimally small chance of coming into existence, they have an infinitesimally weak claim to aid.
There’s a Parfit thought experiment:
I go camping and leave a bunch of broken glass bottles in the woods. I realize that someone may step on this glass and hurt themselves, so perhaps I should bury it. I do not bury it. As it turns out, 20 years pass before someone is hurt. In 20 years, a young child steps on the glass and cuts their foot badly.
It seems like the contractualist principle above would say that there’s no moral value to burying the glass shard, because for any given individual, the probability that they’ll be the one to step on the glass shard is very low[1]. Is that right?
- ^
I think you can sidestep issues with population ethics here by just restricting this to people already alive today (so replace “young child” in the Parfit example with “adult” I guess). Though maybe the pop ethics issues are the crux?
- ^
(I’m a trustee on the EV US board.)
Thanks for checking in. As Linch pointed out, we added Lincoln Quirk to the EV UK board in July (though he didn’t come through the open call). We also have several other candidates at various points in the recruitment pipeline, but we’ve put this a bit on the backburner both because we wanted to resolve some strategic questions before adding people to the board and also because we’ve been lower capacity than we thought.
Having said that, we were grateful for all the applications and nominations which we received in that initial post, and we’re still intending to add additional board members in the coming months.
Yep, it’s still active.
I think we should keep “neglectedness” referring to the amount of resources invested in the problem, not P(success). This seems a better fit for the “tractability” bucket.
(+1 to this approach for estimating neglectedness; I think dollars spent is a pretty reasonable place to start, even though quality adjustments might change the picture a lot. I also think it’s reasonable to look at number of people.)
Looks like the estimate in the 80k article is from 2020, though the callout in the biorisk article doesn’t mention it — and yeah, AIS spending has really taken off since then.
I think the OP amount should be higher because I think one should count X% of the spending on longtermist community-building as being AIS spending, for some X. [NB: I work on this team.]
I downloaded the public OP grant database data for 2022 and put it here. For 2022, the sum of all grants tagged AIS and LTist community-building is ~$155m. I think a reasonable choice of X is between 50% and 100%, so taking 75% at a whim, that gives ~$115m for 2022.
Made the front page of Hacker News. Here’s the comments.
The most common pushback (and the first two comments, as of now) are from people who think this is an attempt at regulatory capture by the AI labs, though there’s a good deal of pushback and (I thought) some surprisingly high-quality discussion.
Off topic: There’s a line in the movie A Cinderella Story: Christmas Wish that might be applicable to you: “was also credited with helping shift the Animal Rights movement to a more utilitarian focus including a focus on chicken.”
This is an amazing thing to learn.
FWIW several people I spoke to just weren’t aware subforums existed, during the time they were being piloted.
This refers to the amount you were promised from FTXF.
This refers to the amount that was promised, but hasn’t been paid out.
(I work at Open Phil assisting with this effort.)
Thanks for pointing this out; it looks like there was a technical error which excluded these from the email receipt, which we’ve now fixed. The information was still received on our end, so you don’t need to take any extra actions.
(I work at Open Phil assisting with this effort.)
-
Any grantee who is affected by the collapse of FTXFF and whose work falls within our focus areas (biosecurity, AI risk, and community-building) should feel free to apply, even if they have significant runway.
-
For various reasons, we don’t anticipate offering any kind of program like this, and are taking the approach laid out in the post instead. Edit: We’re still working out a number of the details, and as the comment below states, people who are worried about this should still apply.
-
(I work at Open Phil assisting with this effort.)
We think that people in this situation should apply. The language was intended to include this case, but it may not have been clear.
Exactly when does the program begin? I couldn’t find this info above.
(meta musing) The conjunction of the negations of a bunch of statements seems a bit doomed to get a lot of disagreement karma, sadly. Esp. if the statements being negated are “common beliefs” of people like the ones on this forum.
I agreed with some of these and disagreed with others, so I felt unable to agreevote. But I strongly appreciated the post overall so I strong-upvoted.