Arguments like this show why AI Safety could benefit from allocating more attention in nearer-term and certain risks. 

Usually, the logic against this lies in allocating more resources into s-risks and x-risks due to their enormous detrimental impact. But building the whole AIS field around them is dangerous for the optics outside the field, especially if slower timelines come to play.

Also, I haven't found much literature on how focusing on more certain risks (cyber-attacks, power concentration, disruption of critical infrastructure...) could help prevent s-risks and x-risks. Could be a field worth exploring of research.

Agree, there is a mismatch in communication between what AIS organizations actually need and what they are telling candidates. And although I consider necessary the talent infrastructure AIS is building, it is quite inefficient and problematic as I discussed here.

The main concern I see: fellowships and most training programs are focused on "low-hanging fruits". They are advertised as ways to bring experienced talent into the field, but rather they tend to select people who either would have less problems to enter a job, or people who were already in the field (I analysed the fellows backgrounds of famous fellowships such as GovAI or MATS and I can confidently say this is the case).

And if we are focused on just draining the talent pool of already best-suitable talent for the sake of short term cost-effectiveness or immediate appealing metrics... AIS is going to have a chunk of a problem in a few years without good talent available.

Sounds great! I´m aware "Mental Health" ranks among the lowest prioritized causes in EA (it doesn't have a core topic tag either in the forum!). Good to know about your project.

As a psychologist and founder of a couple for-profit businesses in the past I might be interested. 

What is exactly the profile(s) of facilitators you are looking for?

Also, can you check the SSL and security standards on your webpage? Tried to enter to know more about your organization, but warning messages appeared all over the place.

From a "cost-effectiveness" framework (and the objective of maximizing impact), competition among charities is not detrimental itself. But I agree this competitive drive for funds should be balanced with synergetic approaches. 

Reading similar posts, the main issue seems if they are caring indeed for doing most good. If that was the main goal, an "adequate" funded charity would be willing to give up some funding if they believe smaller ones have a higher capacity to allocate more effectively those funds.

Probably, the problem of competition arises when a "survival mindset" is at play, which would rise questions about why funding is scarce. A bad assessment of cause prioritization? Overcrowded sector by similar charities? Or harmful incentives influencing selfish requests for funding?

I would not blame competition alone, but rather conduct an in-depth analysis of all these issues. Probably, would be a nice idea of a non-profit to enhance the collaboration and the cross-working among charities in similar areas.

I strongly recommend reading the book "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a world that can't stop talking", by Susan Cain. It changed my whole view of introverted people, and think goes quite along with this post. =)

P.S. Planning to go to my first EA event soon. I really appreciate this set of advice you gave!

As a psychologist I might be biased, be I couldn't agree more with your framework.

Humans are the ones developing AI in frontier labs. Humans are deciding what to legislate in government offices. Humans are pushing safeguards and limits on AI. Why AIS seems to forget so much about the human factor in what this technology becomes and its impact?

Even agentic AI evaluations, alignment interventions and interpretability techniques could vastly benefit from social scientists that are the most informed about how decision-making and motivation work (not only computer scientists or philosophers, that are also valuable of course).

I hope to see in the near future a wider range of backgrounds including social scientists positively influencing AIS field.

Hi Gergő! I believe there is an important misunderstanding when we say AIS talent needs more context.

When hearing this, most candidates believe they need more "technical" or "existential-risk" context (leading them to apply for more BlueDot style courses or workshops). But, is it that so? Or do they need more "field" context?

Are organizations looking for candidates to signal more awareness about AIS urgency? Or rather, they are expecting talent to signal values alignment and knowledge of AIS and adjacent-fields (EA frameworks, network connections, current AIS organizations needs and bottlenecks, etc.)?

In other words, are AIS organizations looking for capable and informed talent about AIS dangers, or are they prioritising talent they can trust and informed about the field particular needs?

These are very different context requirements, and both can be important. But maybe, we are failing to properly inform and guide talent about the latter.

I also believe an important constraint in AIS is the scarcity of organizations to absorbe promising talent and funding available. Maybe that is also the reason why is getting harder to enter the field as an outsider. Should we focus on building more high-impact AIS organizations instead of demanding and increasing higher bar for talent?

I have experienced both sides of the candidate and hiring manager equation, and I know there is not a clear answer to all this. But just telling promising talent to have more "context" without proper guidance and nuances seems not being enough.

This was touching and I appreciate your sincerity. I feel EA also needs these emotional expressions to complement the rational input that drives the community.

"I’m only now finding my own path because it’s taken me a long time to pry myself".

I think there is not an "absolute high-impact cause" for everyone. A cause can be great to commit for someone based on personal fit, and horrible for other person, even if it is the same "high impact" cause. 

Same logic to apply for judgments. A person is not "high potential" in absolute terms, is "high potential for X skill, for Y cause, for Z project", and probably bad for others because there are negative-correlated capabilities.

Practising contextualizing and relativizing our communication could be great for EA, so more sensitive people feel welcomed and embraced by this community. 

Compassion and emotions are one essential part of humanity, so thanks for expressing all this. =)

Hi again Jack! I agree with you, and sure we have to be concerned about the pursue of money, power and status. Especially within the EA community, where they could be easily disguised as other intentions.

What I meant is that even if we should keep them on check, they are natural motivations that should not be denied or fought against (but rather balanced and integrated). In case of divergences, moral values and honesty are needed for oneself, and mechanisms as you described in the post will be useful for those not sharing this morality.

I really hope the EA movement flourish. Even if I have been short time in this community I have seen a lot of open minded and well intended humans in this space. =)

As a newcomer to EA I am not able to give much input, but as a psychologist I can tell a few things about money, power and status.

The most important is what you described: we are fallible. We care about social status because is inherent in our DNA as a means to survive within the tribe. And rather than deny it, the best we can do is admit it and embrace that side of humanity. Because then we will be able to control it, instead of being controlled by greed.

I truly believe you can pursue selfish and altruistic goals at the same time. The issue is what you do when both are in conflict, how can you reconcile those motivations.

Maybe, doing most good requires also caring about your selfish motivations instead of fighting against them along the way (so that part within ourselves will not sabotage us). Being honest with yourself in the first place, and practice pure honesty and transparency with those outside. 

Pursuing money, status and power is not the problem. Pursuing them secretly using EA or other people as a means, is the big concern.