· 19 posts
Sequences
2
My name is Gergő, I'm director at EA UK. Previously I was at the European Network for AI Safety and co-founded of Amplify, a marketing agency dedicated to helping fieldbuilding projects. My journey into communitybuilding started in 2019 with organising EA meetups on a volunteer basis.
I started doing full-time paid work in CB in 2021, when I founded an EA club at my university (it wasn’t supposed to be full-time at least at the beginning, but you know how it is). This grew into a city group and eventually into a national group called EA Hungary. We also spun out an AIS group in 2022, which I’m still leading. AIS Hungary is one of the few AIS groups that have 2+ FTE working for them.
Previously I was a volunteer charity analyst and analysis coordinator for SoGive, an experience I think of fondly and I’m grateful for. I have also done some academic research in psychology.
I don't think AI Safety fails is the ideal kind of infrastructure we should have in place for people who are getting rejected, but I'm also not suprised someone eventually made it.
I wish there was a place where rejectees got to interact and provide peer support to each other, whether or not they are looking to puruse ai safety career further.
I think we’re mostly using “talent” differently here. If it means the whole package such as skills, experience, context, networks and being in the right location: then yes, there’s a shortage of people who tick all those boxes. My point is that “AI safety is talent-constrained” can sound to newcomers like broadly capable people are in short supply. I also don't envy you on the hiring side, though with all the AI-applications one gets these days:)
I agree that what you describe is technically still a talent constraint, but this nuance is mainly lost in translation, which is why we have this issue.
Great point, and I agree that there should be more orgs such as SuccessIf!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment and bringing the typo to my attention!
Thanks for sharing this! I didn't think of people misunderstanding what "we" mean by context, but if it leads to taking technical courses unnecessarily, that sounds like a problem indeed. What I mean by it is outlined here, which is where I usually send people, including in this post. It gives people quite a lot of pointers on what to do!
Good question! I'm not entirely sure, but I'd really like to see the sabbatical project happen, as it could better support people who have the time to upskill more quickly.
As for ideal founders, beyond the usual skills needed to start an organisation, I think it's important that they can tell a credible story. For example, if someone were to start "Return for Impact", I'd want at least one of the co-founders to be a parent who has gone through the same journey they're now helping others navigate.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, really like your 1st point on flipping the framework!
Would be curious why you are uncertain about people putting in 30-40 hours vs. a few hours into a career transition - to me it seems obvious that the more people invest, the more ground they will cover? (Perhaps with some diminishing returns)
Yes, agreed that these are different, I'm just lumping them together for similicity
Oh thanks very much, reading the sentence again, it's quite a mouthful! :)