Will Bradshaw

Karma: 7,868

Will Bradshaw 6 Dec 2023 23:31 UTC
41 points
22 ∶ 14
in reply to: Ofer’s comment on: EA thoughts from Israel-Hamas war
I downvoted this comment, even though I’m pretty sympathetic to many of the factual claims it contains: in particular, I don’t believe that Israeli civilian or military leadership are doing everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. Nevertheless, this comment feels quite out-of-place and vaguely inappropriate to me, given the framing and emotional tone of the OP, which feels much more about explaining one person’s feelings and thought processes than an actual attempt to make a strong argument for a specific position.
I also think it’s needlessly hostile, in a place where compassion and acknowledgement of uncertainty seem particularly important. Calling someone’s views “propaganda talking points” seems like a bad way to start any productive dialogue.

Will Bradshaw 30 Nov 2023 16:02 UTC
12 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: Yarrow Bouchard’s comment on: EA is good, actually
The stated reason is the same as Nick’s: since the FTX collapse he’s been reused from too much board business for staying on the board to make sense:

Since last November, I’ve been recused from the board on all matters associated with FTX and related topics, which has ended up being a large proportion of board business. (This is because the recusal affected not just decisions that were directly related to the collapse of FTX, but also many other decisions for which the way EV UK has been affected by the collapse of FTX was important context.) I know I initially said that I’d wait for there to be more capacity, but trustee recruitment has moved more slowly than I’d anticipated, and with the ongoing recusal I didn’t expect to add much capacity for the foreseeable future, so it felt like a natural time to step down.

Will Bradshaw 7 Nov 2023 12:15 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: DavidNash’s comment on: What’s the justification for EA being so elitist?
TIL!

I think this strengthens my confidence in my original comment re: nearly all EA roles being paid under market rate.

Will Bradshaw 7 Nov 2023 1:57 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: calebp’s comment on: What’s the justification for EA being so elitist?
Yeah, I agree this is a real and hard case.

Similarly, I think there are roles where the only readily available benchmarks are in academia or the nonprofit sector—in these cases we can assume that those benchmarks are too low, but we don’t know by how much, so determining fair compensation is hard. Community building plausibly falls into this bucket.

Will Bradshaw 6 Nov 2023 18:02 UTC
5 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Stan Pinsent’s comment on: What’s the justification for EA being so elitist?
Interesting. Are there any examples of EA jobs which are more poorly-paid than their private-sector counterparts?
I think this is the great majority of EA jobs that aren’t in operations.
In our case (as an EA-adjacent biosecurity org), it’s simultaneously the case that (a) most of our staff are well-paid relative to academic and nonprofit benchmarks, and (b) most of our staff could make much more money working in the private sector. Several of our best (and best-compensated) performers took dramatic pay cuts to work for us. I think this is the norm for EA-adjacent organizations, and is roughly the correct norm to be pursuing.
In discussions of EA compensation, it’s very common to equivocate between “EA jobs are well-paid relative to nonprofit/academic benchmarks”, “EA jobs are well-paid relative to the average person” and “EA-jobs are well-paid relative to for-profit benchmarks”. I think only the last of these is actually cause for concern, and is quite rarely true.
That said, I have seen EA operations roles (primarily at EV orgs) that I think were significantly overpaid, so I’m not going to claim this never happens.

Will Bradshaw 2 Nov 2023 11:36 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Announcing EA Global plans for 2024
I’m also curious about this. Boston is convenient to me as a Cambridge resident, but I’d guess that holding an event in DC would be more valuable.

Will Bradshaw 2 Nov 2023 11:34 UTC
5 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: ElliotJDavies’s comment on: Announcing EA Global plans for 2024
I don’t think I agree that CEA shouldn’t be doing cause specific events, and I think that given how the past couple of Bay Area EAGs went this is a pretty natural decision.

But it does seem pretty regrettable that there’ll be no cause-general EAG in the Americas next year.

Will Bradshaw 9 Oct 2023 12:30 UTC
39 points
12 ∶ 5
in reply to: Will Bradshaw’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
Another two weeks later, and with no response or acknowledgement from Nonlinear (or even a statement about when they plan to give a response), I’m personally updating moderately towards the view that Nonlinear’s communications around the initial release of this post were more about FUD/DARVO than honesty. I’ve also updated further towards the position that it was right for Ben to post when he did, and that delaying would have been playing into the hands of bad actors. These remain defeasible positions, but I’m not holding my breath.

Will Bradshaw 21 Sep 2023 12:04 UTC
23 points
11 ∶ 3
in reply to: Jeff Kaufman’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
I think there are practical reasons why it might take longer to prepare a comprehensive public response than the private response they were envisaging for Ben + Lightcone. That said, I also think that there are a lot of non-comprehensive responses that would have taken less time to write while still supporting their version of events, and I think it’s reasonable to update against Nonlinear in their absence.

Will Bradshaw 20 Sep 2023 13:07 UTC
95 points
30 ∶ 2
on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
We’re coming up on two weeks now since this post was published, with no substantive response from Nonlinear (other than this). I think it would be good to get an explicit timeline from Nonlinear on when we can expect to see their promised response. It’s reasonable to ask for folks to reserve judgement for a short time, but not indefinitely. @Kat Woods @Emerson Spartz

Will Bradshaw 11 Sep 2023 12:19 UTC
38 points
21 ∶ 0
in reply to: chloe’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
I hope this doesn’t seem heartless, but: Given the degree of contested narratives in this affair, can someone not-anonymous with access to Chloe confirm that this account speaks for her?

(i think it probably does, to be clear, but also think it’s worth checking)

Will Bradshaw 10 Sep 2023 18:07 UTC
30 points
21 ∶ 8
in reply to: David_Moss’s comment on: Thoughts on EA, post-FTX
Thanks for this. I found the uncited claims about EA’s “reputational collapse” in the OP quite frustrating and appreciated this more data-driven response.

Will Bradshaw 10 Sep 2023 16:24 UTC
7 points
10 ∶ 8
in reply to: Morpheus_Trinity’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
I don’t personally think posting this here is particularly helpful or adds much to the conversation.

Will Bradshaw 10 Sep 2023 16:23 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Rockwell’s comment on: An Incomplete List of Things I Think EAs Probably Shouldn’t Do
Thanks for clarifying, I agree category #3 is the most dicey of the three.
How do you see these trials as differing from standard probation? Is it that the chance of a no-hire at the end is higher? Or the length? Or something else?

Will Bradshaw 10 Sep 2023 14:05 UTC
11 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: Adrià Garriga Alonso’s comment on: An Incomplete List of Things I Think EAs Probably Shouldn’t Do
In general, I think it is helpful in discussing work trials if people (including the OP) distinguished between three different things that are commonly called work trials:
- Take-home trial tasks / timed online tests, which typically take somewhere in the region of 2-8 hours and are designed to be doable on a weekend or otherwise without work disruption.
- Short (usually 1-3-day) work trials prior to receiving a job offer. This is what I usually think of as being referred to by the term “work trial”. While it’s technically true that these “interruption of regular employment to complete” (quote from OP) I think it’s generally pretty manageable to make this work by taking e.g. 1-2 days of vacation.
- Long (often several months) “work trials” that essentially act as extended paid probation. I’ve seen these at a few EA orgs and sometimes feel iffy about them, but IMO they’re not all that different from standard probation practices in the US. They definitely require “those currently employed full-time [to] leave their existing job”, though.
I’m not sure which of these the OP was including in her claim. Presumably not the first one?

Will Bradshaw 9 Sep 2023 15:16 UTC
6 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Tristan Williams’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
One thing I’m confused about: Emerson is the one making threats, so how do I update on the rest of the Nonlinear team?
I was also uncertain about this, but Kat’s comment above seems to indicate (though not outright say) that she supports the threat to sue.

Will Bradshaw 7 Sep 2023 22:41 UTC
17 points
8 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ruby’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
Yeah, this seems right.

Will Bradshaw 7 Sep 2023 22:10 UTC
25 points
20 ∶ 3
in reply to: Holly_Elmore’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
Most of the allegations in the OP seem comfortably out-of-distribution to me. (Unless the distribution includes FTX & Leverage, but we know how those went.)

Will Bradshaw 7 Sep 2023 20:38 UTC
21 points
7 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
I agree with this, and think it could have been a terrible day for EA if stuff like this surfaced later in a world where Nonlinear had become more influential. But thankfully* we’re not in that world.
(* Thankfully assuming the allegations are broadly true etc etc.)

Will Bradshaw 7 Sep 2023 18:11 UTC
19 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Joel Becker’s comment on: Sharing Information About Nonlinear
Thanks, I think taking the time to make this stronger phrasing publicly is quite valuable (and seems to match what everyone else is saying so far). It’s important that we not engage in guilt-by-association.