My name is Gergő, and my academic background is in psychology. I’m the director at the European Network for AI Safety and founder 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.
Leave anonymous feedback on me here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf42mPUB_jf7fYK_3PkyFN3QHbo8AF-upGUjkji-1r8AdEZIA/viewform
Anonymous feedback to EA Hungary here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeiRUPX8aOz3nWNOIG4KA6-bYCSZ0BRRx69vwmqEn5ctsQ-vw/viewform
To follow up on this:
it's not important to me that people know a lot about in-group language, people, or events around AI safety
I can see that people and events are less important, but as far as concepts go, I presume it would be important for them to know at least some of the terms, such as x/s risk, moral patienthood, recursive self-improvement, take-off speed, etc.
As far as I know, really none of these are widely known outside of the AIS community, or do you mean something else by in-group language?
Sorry for the late reply, Vasco. Thanks for your comment! I echo some of Chris's points, but wanted to add some scattered thoughts:
I think the cost-effectiveness of AIS groups vs Bluedot would definitely depend on a given group, as I expect there to be large differences between different groups. The best ones might be more cost-effective than Bluedot, but I doubt anyone looked at this very rigorously (this analysis is great, but doesn't include a Bluedot-like program). If you have the money, you likely want to fund both even if one is slightly better than the other.
The volunteer-run initiatives are likely more cost-effective kind of by default (though see next point).
Another consideration is a tradeoff between impact and cost-effectiveness. E.g if Bluedot is not funding constrained, then it might make sense for them to optimize for the largest impact, even if that comes with the price of slightly decreased cost-effectiveness. An example of this could be diminishing returns on spending money on LinkedIn ads. This could mean that the marginal impact of money donated to them is smaller, but funders still might prefer this to having to spend time on evaluating 10 AIS groups due to time costs)
Thanks for sharing!
This is great practice; however, I believe it happens only in a minority of cases. Typically, people who are filtered out early receive an email stating they can't receive individual feedback. Given this, I recommend that if someone makes it far enough to be invited to an interview, ask for feedback at the end of the meeting before concluding. It's better than sending an email after a decision has been made.
Alternatively, if you encounter the hiring manager at a conference, consider reaching out. However, if the interview was some time ago, don't expect them to remember, as they’ve likely conducted hundreds since then.