So New Zealand actually has a quite unique situation that I'm not sure really exists elsewhere, and I've sent messages to people at EA NZ a few times advocating for research into this:
New Zealand has a Global Impact Visa:
Where selection is solely based on individuals' focus on positively impacting the world
That isn't tied to employment or other traditional immigration categories
And where a non-governmental non-profit organization selects the recipients
This is kind of remarkable anywhere, but especially given it's NZ. I'd be pretty excited for EA NZ (or a nonprofit made for this purpose) to try to gain access as the second-nominating organization for this visa.
This could unlock a rare, valuable immigration pathway for:
• Early-stage talent from less-developed, or otherwise less-suitable countries to gain access to a top job market for skill development, earning to give/earning to gain runway, or just a more stable / useful situation for them to work and live in
• People working on civilizational robustness or longtermist initiatives that would benefit from NZ’s status as a safe zone for global catastrophic risk
While this could take time, and has significant uncertainty of success, unlocking this sort of immigration possibility, which seems ~only possible in NZ, could be quite valuable.
I suspect it should be emphasized that you really shouldn't put much time or effort into your message.
It's been almost 20 years since I worked for someone in government, so I could be wrong, but even then we simply added to the count of people who wrote in in favor (and recorded it with their name in our database) and didn't read the note.
They also wouldn't cover e.g. capabilities companies being reckless or violating commitments they made, unless they break some clear law, and even then protections are pretty limited.
Quick Take: Probably the best board members will have some significant hesitance to accept. This is one spot where I think EA is sometimes getting things wrong right now, and where I think e.g. a full hiring round for a board is quite misdirected.
Wrote the following in a Slack thread asking about advice for selecting board members:
(I’m familiar with the US and not other places, so some of this may not exactly be right outside the US.)
First of all, your Board has ~complete control over your organization. They can remove the executive, change strategy, etc.. So people who share your vision, who you trust, who have high levels of insight, etc.
Given this immense responsibility, you want people who:
Will take this seriously, learning a lot about the org and its space before making key decisions
Who won’t confuse their role with that of e.g. the CEO (won’t overreach)
The Board / board members should add something to the organization. Often this is less relevant in EA, but in startups people often are interested in particular board members because of their network and connections. In EA, perhaps you can bring on someone particularly excellent in people management if you could use improvement there, financial diligence if you’d like that sort of oversight, or someone with strong strategic vision who you otherwise would get less engagement from.
Combining the above, probably the best board members will have some significant hesitance to accept. This is one spot where I think EA is sometimes getting things wrong right now, and where I think e.g. a full hiring round for board members is quite misdirected. Why is it likely that the best board members will have some hesitance to accept?
They take the responsibility seriously; so they plan to dedicate significant attention / hours to the role.
They have high expertise / are in demand, so they have to be careful about how many commitments they take on.
I expect that if they aren't hesitant to accept, they are often not sufficient in one of the above subbullets (most often in EA from my POV, the relevant one is that they don't place sufficient importance on the role and dedicate too little time to it.)
There’s a lot more I could say about board membership and the important qualities, but hopefully this helps a bit.
You're right! Good to know.
ChatGPT on this & implications: https://chatgpt.com/share/e/687ab695-de44-800c-a4e7-ebe0f4b73338
So New Zealand actually has a quite unique situation that I'm not sure really exists elsewhere, and I've sent messages to people at EA NZ a few times advocating for research into this:
New Zealand has a Global Impact Visa:
This is kind of remarkable anywhere, but especially given it's NZ. I'd be pretty excited for EA NZ (or a nonprofit made for this purpose) to try to gain access as the second-nominating organization for this visa.
This could unlock a rare, valuable immigration pathway for:
• Early-stage talent from less-developed, or otherwise less-suitable countries to gain access to a top job market for skill development, earning to give/earning to gain runway, or just a more stable / useful situation for them to work and live in
• People working on civilizational robustness or longtermist initiatives that would benefit from NZ’s status as a safe zone for global catastrophic risk
While this could take time, and has significant uncertainty of success, unlocking this sort of immigration possibility, which seems ~only possible in NZ, could be quite valuable.
Every.org tentatively appears to not have a minimum donation amount.
A number of organizations affiliated with our cause areas are on that platform, I believe.
I suspect it should be emphasized that you really shouldn't put much time or effort into your message.
It's been almost 20 years since I worked for someone in government, so I could be wrong, but even then we simply added to the count of people who wrote in in favor (and recorded it with their name in our database) and didn't read the note.
An alternative take on this (I haven’t researched this topic myself): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LttenWwmRn8LHoDgL/josh-jacobson-s-quick-takes?commentId=ZA2N2LNqQteD5dE4g
There's a similar post on this forum from a few years back, I believe, with some probably valuable discussion.
Quick Take: Probably the best board members will have some significant hesitance to accept. This is one spot where I think EA is sometimes getting things wrong right now, and where I think e.g. a full hiring round for a board is quite misdirected.
Wrote the following in a Slack thread asking about advice for selecting board members:
(I’m familiar with the US and not other places, so some of this may not exactly be right outside the US.)
First of all, your Board has ~complete control over your organization. They can remove the executive, change strategy, etc.. So people who share your vision, who you trust, who have high levels of insight, etc.
Given this immense responsibility, you want people who:
The Board / board members should add something to the organization. Often this is less relevant in EA, but in startups people often are interested in particular board members because of their network and connections. In EA, perhaps you can bring on someone particularly excellent in people management if you could use improvement there, financial diligence if you’d like that sort of oversight, or someone with strong strategic vision who you otherwise would get less engagement from.
Combining the above, probably the best board members will have some significant hesitance to accept. This is one spot where I think EA is sometimes getting things wrong right now, and where I think e.g. a full hiring round for board members is quite misdirected. Why is it likely that the best board members will have some hesitance to accept?
I expect that if they aren't hesitant to accept, they are often not sufficient in one of the above subbullets (most often in EA from my POV, the relevant one is that they don't place sufficient importance on the role and dedicate too little time to it.)
There’s a lot more I could say about board membership and the important qualities, but hopefully this helps a bit.
Yeah, that can be significant work.
Some lawyers claim that there may be significant (though not at all ideal) whistleblowing protection for individuals at AI companies that don't fully comply with the Voluntary Commitments: https://katzbanks.com/wp-content/uploads/KBK-Law360-Despite-Regulation-Lag-AI-Whistleblowers-Have-Protections.pdf
I’m pretty surprised it seemed like a large pain. In my experience it’s been easy to secure.