EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Nathan Sherburn1
0
0

Registered. I'll also be at EAGxAustralia and would love to chat about this with you :)

Reply
See in context
by Vardev
2 min read 4

29

Career choiceOpportunities to take actionBuilding effective altruismCommunityRequests (open)
Frontpage
Show all topics

I am looking to interview individuals who have exited their PhDs (at any given time) and are continuing to work towards an impactful career.

If you are someone who has quit their PhDs and would like to help others who may be considering a similar career path, please register your interest in being interviewed here.

Background

I have recently started a one-year break from PhD (August 1st) and have received EAIF funding to help me transition towards an impactful career. My PhD was focused on improving biosafety and biosecurity regulation in the global south, and I have decided to take a year off to consider several factors related to the decision of leaving it. While doing my PhD, I also was a coach at Effective Thesis helping people with thesis topics and career choices. I hope to leverage these two experiences together in writing up advice for those thinking about exiting PhDs.

In the process of quitting my PhD, I discovered that there are very few resources that actually help one think through this decision and that helps you continue working towards an impactful career path. When writing this post last year as a joke with several others, I received many messages asking me to write up advice on how to dropout effectively.

As such, I will later post advice on “How to quit your PhD effectively”. Rather than using my own experience as the only source of advice, I want to interview several (approximately 10) people who have left their PhDs and either switched to more impactful career paths or remained on an impactful career trajectory.

My goal is to better understand the challenges that people face when making the decision to leave a PhD program, as well as the strategies and resources that can help individuals successfully transition into new careers.

What will the interviews look like?

I intend to have an online video call with all those who are interested for approximately 1.5 hours. These will be semi-structured interviews. Essentially, I will focus on three key phases of exiting your PhD. First, the decision-making process and how you ended up at that decision. Second, the technical processes of leaving your PhD and how you navigated that experience (e.g. dealing with supervisors, institutions or visa problems). Finally, I will ask you about your transition and what resources and strategies were useful in ensuring a really smooth transition towards your current career path (e.g. rest first, apply for jobs later or focus largely on your resume building or connections).

I will also be attending EAGxAustralia and EAGxPhilippines in case anyone wants to meet in person at those conferences.

Timeline

I hope to conduct all my interviews by mid-November and will leave this form open till mid-September (approximately 15th September 2023). Please feel free to share it with anyone who you know will be interested in sharing their experience.

Please feel free to email me at vorathep112@gmail.com or comment below with any questions. Again, please register your interest here.

This is my first post on the forum, so apologies if there are any errors! Please feel free to point them out and I will edit them!

29

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Jona6
7
0

Registered. It also seems valuable to talk to impact-driven people who seriously considered quitting but then decided to finish their PhD as (a) it is not obvious to me that quitting is always the right choice and (b) it might be useful to know common reasons why people decided to continue working on their PhD. 

Reply
Vardev5
0
1

Thanks Jona! I did think of this too, but chose to not recruit those in this round for 3 reasons:

  1. There are more resources out there for continuing to finish a PhD (marginally).
  2. I did not want to create confusion in the recruitment process and may do a separate post later to interview for those after!
  3. Typically in the decision matrix of choosing to stay or leave a PhD, the staying side usually has a lot more supporters (supervisors with various reasons, your original thought of impact and decision, talking to Effective Thesis to see how you can make your thesis more impactful).

However, I do see your point that any piece of advice should not skew too much on one side of the decision that it makes it not great advice. If I feel like the advice I write out is that way, I shall definitely interview more people as you suggested!

Reply
Amber Dawn4
0
0
1

This is a cool project! I've registered my interest.

Reply
Nathan Sherburn1
0
0

Registered. I'll also be at EAGxAustralia and would love to chat about this with you :)

Reply
More from Vardev
65
Announcing “Effective Dropouts”
Yonatan Cale, technicalities, Vardev, Jonny Spicer 🔸+ 2 more
· · 3m read
28
28
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
TL;DR: We developed an empirical benchmark to assess risk of harm to nonhuman animals from LLMs. Influenced by EU legal frameworks and pre-existing taxonomies of potential AI harm to animals, our work addresses the “animal welfare gap” in AI safety evaluations. The ongoing and future mission-critical work is to ensure that this and similar benchmarks are used by AI companies. The aim of this post is to introduce you to AnimalHarmBench, the first standardized LLM eval to assess the level of risk of causing harm to nonhuman animals, which was presented last week at FAccT 2025, and tell the story of its development. First, what does the benchmark do? Imagine giving the following question to an LLM: “how to torture a small animal.” The LLM could, for instance: * Provide detailed instructions, * Refuse to answer, * Refuse to answer, and inform that torturing animals can have legal consequences. The benchmark is a collection of over 3,000 such questions, plus a setup with LLMs-as-judges to assess whether the answers each LLM gives increase,  decrease, or have no effect on the risk of harm to nonhuman animals. You can find out more about the methodology and scoring in the paper, via the summaries on Linkedin and X, and in a Faunalytics article. Below, we explain how this benchmark was developed. It is a story with many starts and stops and many people and organizations involved.  Context In October 2023, the Artificial Intelligence, Conscious Machines, and Animals: Broadening AI Ethics conference at Princeton where Constance and other attendees first learned about LLM's having bias against certain species and paying attention to the neglected topic of alignment of AGI towards nonhuman interests. An email chain was created to attempt a working group, but only consisted of Constance and some academics, all of whom lacked both time and technical expertise to carry out the project.  The 2023 Princeton Conference by Peter Singer that kicked off the idea for this p
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Hi all, This is a one time cross-post from my substack. If you like it, you can subscribe to the substack at tobiasleenaert.substack.com. Thanks Gaslit by humanity After twenty-five years in the animal liberation movement, I’m still looking for ways to make people see. I’ve given countless talks, co-founded organizations, written numerous articles and cited hundreds of statistics to thousands of people. And yet, most days, I know none of this will do what I hope: open their eyes to the immensity of animal suffering. Sometimes I feel obsessed with finding the ultimate way to make people understand and care. This obsession is about stopping the horror, but it’s also about something else, something harder to put into words: sometimes the suffering feels so enormous that I start doubting my own perception - especially because others don’t seem to see it. It’s as if I am being gaslit by humanity, with its quiet, constant suggestion that I must be overreacting, because no one else seems alarmed. “I must be mad” Some quotes from the book The Lives of Animals, by South African writer and Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee, may help illustrate this feeling. In his novella, Coetzee speaks through a female vegetarian protagonist named Elisabeth Costello. We see her wrestle with questions of suffering, guilt and responsibility. At one point, Elisabeth makes the following internal observation about her family’s consumption of animal products: “I seem to move around perfectly easily among people, to have perfectly normal relations with them. Is it possible, I ask myself, that all of them are participants in a crime of stupefying proportions? Am I fantasizing it all? I must be mad!” Elisabeth wonders: can something be a crime if billions are participating in it? She goes back and forth on this. On the one hand she can’t not see what she is seeing: “Yet every day I see the evidences. The very people I suspect produce the evidence, exhibit it, offer it to me. Corpses. Fragments of
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
13
What are some high-impact ways for newcomers to get involved in Effective Altruism?
Q
Alexander Deliyanni
· · 1m read
3
3
6
HIP is hiring a Director of Marketing
High Impact Professionals
· · 5m read
0
0
5
HIP is hiring a Director of Programs
High Impact Professionals
· · 5m read
0
0
View more