Hi CĂŠcile, thanks for the question!
A couple of quick plugs:
Effective Thesis is set up to try to help people answer exactly that question
This article from Horizon Institute has good ideas on how to test your fit for policy roles, which I think is a big factor in whether something like the World Bank would be an impactful route for you (the articleâs mainly about US government institutions, but a lot still applies)
Hi Heatherâthanks for messaging, and for all youâre doing.
Firstly, Iâm really pro earning to give, and if thatâs the path that best balances you having impact, using your skills, and having a lifestyle that isnât burnout-inducing, that might be the best thing. Sounds to me like youâre crushing it! One fairly obvious way of having more impact would just be to share what youâre doing with other vets, and try to gently nudge them to consider some of the same things.
To actually tackle the question, itâs hard to put a fixed number on it, and I suspect youâd get different answers from different organisations as to whether theyâd value your skills or your money higher (and the answers would likely change over time).[1]That said, if you were to found an effective organisation tackling factory farming, Iâd bet that would be more valuable than your donations, perhaps significantly so. It would be more full-on and likely more stressful, but Iâd consider applying for the Charity Entrepreneurship incubation programme in future if youâre more interested in founding something than being an employee (and assuming you could make time for the 2-month programme).
A less drastic move might be to explore serving on boards of some organisations in this space. I spotted a couple of opportunities from a quick scan here, and without knowing the ins and outs of the requirements, Iâd bet there are a bunch of organisations that would benefit from your experience and expertise. The Hive community is also a great place for you to learn more about whatâs going on in the space, connect with other likeminded people, and perhaps offer mentorship to those earlier in their careers.
Iâd be happy to chat about this more if youâd find it valuable (our 1:1 advising page is here), and selfishly Iâd also love to learn more about your journey. Thanks again!
You could try asking e.g. some of the organisations on the AAC jobs board, but Iâm not sure youâd get answers, or how confident and accurate theyâd be.
Hi bgotyal, thanks for engaging! I donât know how which EA orgs that do research youâve already come across, so listing a few here in case there are any you werenât aware of:
1. Rethink Prioritiesâgets commissioned to answer questions like some of those on the list you linked
2. Open Philanthropyâdoes research for its own cause prioritization and funding decisions. Has an internship each year (the next one will be 2026, this was the last one) for people interested in doing this kind of research
3. Forethoughtâfocused on impacts of AGI
4. The AIM research programme is closing, but will be replaced with a fellowship
5. Happier Lives Institute looks into some of the problems it seems youâre interested in
6. Effective Thesis can help you decide on an area of research that would have impact
Research-adjacent areas you may want to consider too
Policy roles
Journalism
Research communication, or public intellectual type work
On location and impact
I would expect being in a research hub like Oxford would be valuable, everything else equal, but I suspect what is most needed is mentorship for early career researchers. Generally speaking, I would suggest getting as much feedback on your research as possible, ideally from someone who is already established in the field you want to be in, but you could try sharing things on this forum if not.
Testing your fit
Iâd also recommend testing your fit for research before embarking on a PhD, due to the heavy time and financial commitment, and the competitiveness of academic careers. It sounds like youâre pretty set on the academic path, but itâs worth spending time really testing that before investing too heavily.
Hi Patrick, thanks for your questions. Not sure from the above whether youâre considering moving before finishing your degree or not, but unless youâve already been offered a paid role, Iâd suggest finishing college is worthwhile. I know itâs easier to move colleges in the US than it is in the UK, but donât know the ins and outs of that process, and I wouldnât have thought being at a college with more EAs is an overriding consideration here.
I would suggest that if youâre open to moving at some point, straight after college is a good time to do so. Youâre early enough in your career that building a new network in somewhere like DC or silicon valley is likely worthwhile (and relatively easy), even at the cost of losing your existing network.
On the EA group questions, I suspect CEA community builders are better placed to answer, but happy to share my own thoughts for what theyâre worth. Philosophy, maths, computer science, economics, and (I think) engineering have been overrepresented in EA, so could be good places to start for attracting new members. I wouldnât worry too much about people bouncing off if they truly just want resume points (and maybe you are then attracting the wrong people), but it probably doesnât hurt to share content like the how to get a job articles from PG and 80k and hoping they find some of the other content engaging too.
I do think EA-inspired careers are a good fit for engineers (and if you havenât already, you could check out High Impact Engineers), even if you donât go into specific engineering roles. Roles in operations, nonprofit entrepreneurship, some parts of AI safety, alt proteins, or international development can all be a fit for engineers, and without being too reductive I think thereâs a decent amount of overlap with the engineering mindset and some EA-style first-principles thinking.
Hi James! Thanks for the question.
A great option if youâre thinking of starting your own non-profit is the Charity Entrepreneurship incubation programme, which will open to applications on 3 August. If youâre not yet set on a particular idea, they can help you work through that, along with pairing you with a co-founder, and providing various kinds of support. Having a look through their charities will give you a sense of the kinds of ideas people have pursued; not all are in LMICs, and many of the founders didnât have experience in international development before starting.
Finding the ideal volunteer opportunity can be tricky, but my guess is that even if the work isnât exactly what you want to be doing in the long term, youâll likely learn useful things about what makes an organisation successful, what things you like and dislike about organisational culture, and some basic tools and techniques you can take into future work. That said, you might actually be better trying to start a small, low-cost project yourself in the areas you mention above, or even a for-profit enterprise to help you build and demonstrate your skills so that you could start your own non-profit later.
In terms of finding small EA orgs, you can check out the orgs on the Probably Good jobs board. We donât (yet) have a way to rank them by size, but clicking through and learning a bit about each organisation is probably useful in building your knowledge anyway.
Hi Gabrielle, thanks for the question!
With the obvious caveat that some of this will depend on the specifics of your workplace and career plan (which weâd be happy to chat through in an advising call), hopefully the following general pointers are useful.
On the âhow to move into higher impact rolesâ, we have a bunch of resources in our article on how to get a job. The fact of you being in a job already doesnât change this too much, but probably allows you to be more patient and deliberate in your search, and might give you more leverage in negotiating on things like salary.
If youâre not actually sure on whether you should quit your job yetâand Iâd generally advise anyone to take that decision seriouslyâthen this article from 80k has some great advice. But assuming you know youâre going to leave, Iâd expect itâs better to stay in your role until youâve found your next thing, for the financial security and other reasons above. If youâre able to be open with your manager about the things youâre not getting in your current role, thereâs a chance theyâll be able to shape things to better suit you, even if thatâs only a short term improvement till you move on. There might also be opportunities within your current organisation to learn new skills, make new connections, or pick up qualifications that could be useful in future. Finally, the old advice of not burning bridges is worth bearing in mind. Even if you think youâll never want to work at that organisation or with that person again, references can be really important.
There are times when it just makes sense to move on, even if you donât know what youâre doing next. It can give more time for contemplation, learning, or just recharging your batteries. But thatâs something probably worth discussing specifically in an advising call :)
Thanks again, and all the best with your move!
Hi RobotDeChair. Thanks for the questionâI always appreciate the chance to engage with people who donât think theyâre represented enough in EA.
As you say, it can be hard to give very broad advice here, but I think the first thing to say is that there are loads of ways you can have impact without formal education/âqualifications. For starters, you can filter for jobs without formal education requirement on the PG jobs board, and as someone who has worked in and around recruiting in EA for a few years now, I do think hiring managers in this community put less stock in credentials than hiring managers in large swathes of the corporate world. Applying to some of these roles and doing work tests and interviews is unlikely to be wasted effort.
Of course âEA jobsâ are not the only way to have impact. Building demonstrable skills, experience, and connections is going to be useful in whatever sector you work in, and if you develop good career capital, thereâs every chance youâre able to put that to good use in the longer term. Itâs hard to be more specific without knowing more of your background, but Iâd be excited to discuss that if you want to DM me, or apply for our 1:1 advising.
Itâs not exactly what you were asking, but I also think itâs hard to say how a future with increasingly powerful AI will change the market for educational qualifications. My guess is that the value of some credentials will really drop, while others will increase, but I defer to Ben Toddâs excellent article on which those are.
Thanks again for the question!
The good news is that itâs possible to level up your context pretty fast. Based on what professionals have told me, the community is also really open and helpful, so you can have a lot of support if you know where and what to ask.
A slight qualifier here is that getting to the level of context required for some jobsâespecially senior ones that experienced professionals might be applying toâcan take (sometimes much) longer, so itâs important to have realistic expectations there. For instance, if you want to work in AI safety, and have a background (e.g. quantitative finance, venture capital) that could give you great skills to be a grantmaker, youâll likely still need to know more than just the high-level concepts and the landscape of organisations working on it; you might need to know the strengths and weaknesses of different theories of change, and have a sense of the wider funding landscape.
That said, I want to commend this as a really helpful article, GergĹ! The suggestions above would still be helpful in the scenario I outline. And FWIW, Iâd love to see more experienced professionals in EA, and in AIS in particular.
Caveat: speaking personally here, rather than for my employer Open Phil.
Hi Quintin,
Thanks very much for flagging this, and sorry for the inconvenience.
Weâve just been testing the form, and canât replicate the error youâre getting. If youâre at least able to see the form fields, and want to apply, youâre welcome to put your answers in a document and send it to jobs@openphilanthropy.orgâwe can then manually add the application for you.
Also happy to go into more details on the error and your setup if thatâs helpfulâfeel free to DM me.
Thanks again for your helpâmuch appreciated!
Thanks Wil. I can agree with that.
Please see my other comment for why I disagree with this comment (and also downvoted it, as I want to see fewer comments like this).
Iâm also sick of the referencing Scott Alexanderâwithout any explanatory comment for how the article relates to the point in questionâas some sort of knockdown argument.
Hi Wil,
My comment here was about Geoffrey Millerâs comment, rather than your original post as a whole (albeit I separately took issue with your use of ârelatively petty...â), so Iâm not sure I follow where youâre going here.
FWIW, if youâre referring to recently-come-to-light examples of sexual harassment and racism when you say âitâs more a lack of competence...â, then I would disagree with your characterisation. I think by saying that the likes of Owen Cotton-Barratt and Nick Bostrom arenât âmalicious sociopathsâ, and that they didnât do it âintentionallyâ you fail to acknowledge the harm theyâve done. Itâs a similar line of argument to your original post when you compare the harm done with âthe survival of the human raceâ. I think itâs missing the point, itâs insensitive, and implies that theyâre not soooo bad.
I also worry when the initial reaction to someoneâs misdeeds is âletâs make sure we donât punish them too harshly, or weâll alienate themâ, rather than âthis is really wrong, and our first priority should be to make sure it doesnât happen againâ. My initial response isnât to shed a tear for the damage to the career of the person who did the wrong thing.
I disagree with your framing this as âattackingâ the people that have done wrong. If anything, itâs the people on the end of the sexual harassment that have been attacked.
I find it distasteful when people point to things like âEA has done a lot of goodâ or âEA has saved a lot of livesâ in the context of revelations of sexual harassment etc. While it might be factually correct, I think it gives the sense that people think itâs OK to do horrible personal things as long as you donate enough to Givewell (I very much disagree).
And one final point: I donât think âthe old guard of EAâ is the right frame (although Iâm somewhat biased as I was involved in EA in 2011-12). I donât believe the majority of wrongdoers are from this group, nor do I believe the majority of this group are wrongdoers.
So no, that framing does not make sense to me.
We are playing for the future, for the survival of the human race. We canât afford to let relatively petty squabbles divide us too much!
I think this is the sort of reasoning that has a) possibly contributed to some of the recent damaging behaviour by EAs and b) almost certainly contributed to the failure to take that behaviour seriously enough.
Everything is ârelatively pettyâ when compared to the survival of the human race, but I donât think thatâs the relevant comparison here.
Iâm grateful for this comment, because itâs an exemplar of the kind of comment that makes me feel most disappointed by the EA community.
Itâs bad enough that influential EAs have caused a lot of damage to other individuals, and to the good work that might be done by the community. But itâs really upsetting that a lot of the community (at least as exemplified by the comments on the forum; I know this isnât fully representative) doesnât seem to take it seriously enough. Weâre talking about really horrible examples of racism and sexual harassment here, not âwoke activismâ gone too far. It hurts people directly, it repels others from the community, and it also makes it harder to further important causes.
Itâs also couched in the terms of ârationalismâ and academic integrity (âlet me try to steel-man a possible counter-argument...â), rather than just coming out and saying what it is. I donât think youâre (merely) trying to make a hypothetical argument. Similarly the âI hope EAs see whatâs [really]* happening here, and understand the clear and present dangers...â sounds alarmist to me.
*I included the [really], because it seems to me like the author of the comment is trying to lend weight to their argument by implying they are revealing something most people would otherwise miss.
Agree. Should have added those to my own comment, but felt like Iâd already spent too much time on it!
I appreciate there are reasonable differences of opinion here (and the downside of drawing attention to a deeply unpleasant publication), but I personally would think better of an organisation that made this FAQ more visible from their homepage. Itâs hard to find unless you have the link, or search for terms you know will be in there.
I upvoted this, but disagreed. I think the timeline would be better if it included:
November 2022: FLI inform Nya Dagbladet Foundation (NDF) that they will not be funding them
15 December 2022: FLI learn of media interest in the story
I therefore donât think itâs âabsurdâ to have expected FLI to have repudiated NDF sooner. You could argue that by apologising for their mistake before the media interest does more harm than good by drawing attention to it (and by association, to NDF), but once they became aware of the media attention, I think they should have issued something more like their current statement.
I also agreed with the thrust of titotalâs comment that their first statement was woefully inadequate (it was more like ânothing to see hereâ than âoh damn, we seriously considered supporting an odious publication and weâre sorryâ). I donât think lack of time gets them off the hook here, given they should have expected Expo to publish at some point.
I donât think anyone owes an apology for expecting FLI to do better than this.
(Note: I appreciate Max Tegmark was dealing with a personal tragedy (for which, my condolences) at the time of it becoming âa thingâ on the EA Forum, so I of course wouldnât expect him to be making quick-but-considered replies to everything posted on here at that time. But I think thereâs a difference between that and the speed of the proper statement.)
***
FWIW I also had a different interpretation of Shakeelâs 9:18pm comment than what you write here:
âJan 13, 9:18pm: Shakeel follows up, repeating that he sees no reason why FLI wouldnât have already made a public statement, and raises the possibility that FLI has maybe done sinister questionably-legal things and thatâs why they havenât spoken up.â
Shakeel said âJasonâs comment has made me realise there might be something else going on here, though; if that is the case then that would make the silence make more sense.â â this seemed to me that Shakeel was trying to to be charitable, and understand the reasons FLI hadnât replied quicker.
Only a subtle difference, but wanted to point that out.
Thanks for this post, Dan. I work in headhunting for EA orgs, so please read these comments with that in mind!
Iâd echo Ozzieâs comment on transparency, and Iâd want orgs to push back on me if they think what Iâm doing is overstepping the mark into something like âaggressive persuasionâ.
(Naturally) I donât see my role like that, and whilst I wouldnât claim that I perfectly calculate the global impact of every potential job switch when considering reaching out to someone, nor is it a simple case of following a short-term financial incentive. Even from a purely selfish headhunterâs perspective, I donât think a strategy of heavy convincing in order to fill a role would be productive in anything but the very short term.
I certainly consider the downsides for the potential losing employer if that employerâs an EA or adjacent org. This is especially so if they havenât been there long, and/âor would be making a sideways move rather than advancing their career.
That said, I wouldnât want to rule out approaching employees of EA or adjacent orgs, to include extolling the virtues of the hiring org as I understand them. That sort of âconvincingâ seems legitimate to me. As Habryka points out, people are capable of considering offers and incentives hiring organisations and headhunters might have, and host orgs are capable of counter-convincing.
So it seems to me that the key issue is what counts as legitimate or otherwiseâobviously deception is wrong, but Iâm not sure itâs easy to draw the line between âproviding informationâ and âconvincingâ. Do you have specific suggestions? I want to make sure I get this right, so would be keen to discuss with youâmy email is tom@activesearch.org.
FWIW, I agree that itâs better to hire from outside of EA where possible, and Iâm especially excited about bringing more mid-career talent into the community from âoutsideâ. What makes this difficult is that hiring managers often want to see evidence of âvalue alignmentâ or âcultural fitâ, one proxy for which is often âworking at an EA/âadjacent orgâ. EA-specific knowledge can also be helpful in a lot of roles. People already connected to this space are also much likelier to understand and be motivated to work on the weird causes that EA orgs pursue.
Thanks again for your post, and I look forward to hearing from you if youâd like to discuss further.
Also Huel
Just to echo what Nick said: I loved the openness of this post, thanks for writing it!