Eli Rose's Quick takes

(vibesy post)

People often want to be part of something bigger than themselves. At least for a lot of people this is pre-theoretic. Personally, I've felt this since I was little: to spend my whole life satisfying the particular desires of the particular person I happened to be born into the body of, seemed pointless and uninteresting.

I knew I wanted "something bigger" even when I was young (e.g. 13 years old). Around this age my dream was to be a novelist. This isn't a kind of desire people would generally call "altruistic," nor would my younger self have called it "altruistic." But it was certainly grounded in a desire for my life to mean something to other people. Stuff like the Discworld series and Watchmen really meant something to me, and I wanted to write stuff that meant something to others in the same way.

My current dreams and worldview, after ~10 years of escalating involvement with EA, seem to me to spring from the same seed. I feel continuous with my much younger self. I want my life to mean something to others: that is the obvious yardstick. I want to be doing the most I can on that front.

The empirics were the surprising part. It turns out that the "basic shape of the world" is much more mutable than my younger self thought, and in light of this my earlier dreams seem extremely unambitious. Astonishingly, I can probably:

• save many lives over my career at minimum, by donating to GiveWell, and likely more by doing more off the beaten path things
• save <large number> of e.g. chickens from lives full of torture
• be part of a pretty small set of people seriously trying to do something about truly wild risks from new AI and bioengineering technologies

It probably matters more to others that they are not tortured, or dying of malaria, or suffering some kind of AI catastrophe, than that there is another good book for them to read, especially given there are already a lot of good novelists. The seed of the impulse is the same — wanting to be part of something bigger, wanting to live for my effect on others and not just myself. My sense of what is truly out there in the world and of what I can do about it are what's changed.

It is popular to hate on Swapcard, and yet Swapcard seems like the best available solution despite its flaws. Claude Code or other AI coding assistants are very good nowadays, and conceivably, someone could just Claude Code a better Swapcard that maintained feature parity while not having flaws.

Overall I'm guessing this would be too hard right now, but we do live in an age of mysteries and wonders. It gets easier every month. One reason for optimism is it seems like the Swapcard team is probably not focused on the somewhat odd use case of EAGs in general (e.g. from what I understand, most conferences in the world have much less emphasis on 1-1 meetings).

And if you made a Swapcard replacement good enough to replace Swapcard for CEA event purposes, just think of the glory. (And the impact.)

Vince Gilligan (the Breaking Bad guy) has a new show Pluribus which is many things, but also illustrates an important principle, that being (not a spoiler I think since it happens in the first 10 minutes)...

If you are SETI and you get an extraterrestrial signal which seems to code for a DNA sequence...

DO NOT SYNTHESIZE THE DNA AND THEN INFECT A BUNCH OF RATS WITH IT JUST TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS. 

Just don't. Not a complicated decision. All you have to do is go from "I am going to synthesize the space sequence" to "nope" and look at that, x-risk averted. You're a hero. Incredible work.

There is/was a debate on LessWrong about how valid the efficient market hypothesis is. I think this is super interesting stuff, but I want to claim (with only some brief sketches of arguments here) that, regarding EA projects, the efficient market hypothesis is not at all valid (that is, I think it's a poor way to model the situation that will lead you to make systematically wrong judgments). I think the main reasons for this are:

1. EA and the availability of lots of funding for it are relatively new — there's just not that much time for "market inefficiencies" to have been filled.
2. The number of people in EA who are able to get funding for, and excited to start, new projects, is really small relative to the number of people doing this in the wider world.

If you're an EA who's just about to graduate, you're very involved in the community, and most of the people you think are really cool are EAs, I think there's a decent chance you're overrating jobs at EA orgs in your job search. Per the common advice, I think most people in this position should be looking primarily at the "career capital" their first role can give them (skills, connections, resume-building, etc.) rather than the direct impact it will let them have.

At first blush it seems like this recommends you should almost never take an EA job early in your career — since jobs at EA orgs are such a small proportion of all jobs, what are the odds that such a job was optimal from a career capital perspective? I think this is wrong for a number of reasons, but it's instructive to actually run through the list. One is that a job being at an EA org is correlated with it being good in other ways — e.g. with it having smart, driven colleagues that you get on well with, or with it being in a field connected to one of the world's biggest problems. Another is that some types of career capital are best gotten at EA orgs or in doing EA projects — e.g. if you want to upskill for community-building work, there's plausibly no Google/McKinsey of community-building to go get useful career capital for this at. (Though I do think some types of experience, like startup experience, are often transferable to community-building.)

I think a good orientation to have towards this is to try your hardest, when looking at jobs as a new grad, to "wipe the slate clean" of tribal-affiliation-related considerations, and (to a large extent) of impact-related considerations, and assess mostly based on career-capital considerations.

(Context: I worked at an early-stage non-EA startup for 3 years before getting my current job at Open Phil. This was an environment where I was pushed to work really hard, take on a lot of responsibility, and produce high-quality work. I think I'd be way worse at my current job [and less likely to have gotten it] without this experience. My co-workers cared about lots of instrumental stuff EA cares about, like efficiency, good management, feedback culture, etc. I liked them a lot and was really motivated. However, this doesn't happen to everyone at every startup, and I was plausibly unusually well-suited to it or unusually lucky.)