Josh, thank you for the comment!

Thank you! Reached out to learn more. 

William, thank you for the contribution. Your mis-hires note also helps to add one more specific question to our historic examples quest: how do other high-stakes industries define and mitigate harm from mis-hires? It's another open question to the list, but I'd welcome any input.

Mark, thank you for the thoughtful reflection and the questions. You’ve raised some questions that we keep as open for now ourselves, as they require deeper research we haven’t done yet.

We indeed wonder if there’s anything like PMF but in other industries with multiple actors, to learn more about joint recruitment practices and preservation of values through scaling there.

And I’m not aware of any publicly operating AIS groups or channels dedicated specifically to HR, but would appreciate learning if there is one. Thank you for the idea. 

In terms of understanding strategy, it's important to realise that different people have wildly different worldviews and ways of seeing the world. You can collapse these down to a few dot points and tell yourself that you understand the different perspectives, but you'd just be kidding yourself (I've made this mistake myself in the past).

This is a curious point to explore further, thank you for raising it and describing vividly. If I understand you correctly, it complements one of our observations—that worldviews might be a tricky thing to evaluate, which raises the question of what exactly AIS organisations look for when they look for alignment, and how the job seekers need to obtain or signal it. That’s what we'd love more data on, alongside with our more general questions. 

Thank you for your encouragement and being open to further contact.

Thank you for the clarification. In your opinion, what is the level of knowledge or particular signal you’d expect as sufficient for a “generalist” to have, and is it equally necessary among the roles (e.g. how much would it differ for otherwise skilled operations vs. research management professionals )? 
Would be great to talk if it's more comfortable and if you're open to.

ton of individual membership

Chris, thank you for your comment. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by individual membership in this context?

I am curious to read more about EA community’s current takes on humanity’s epistemic resilience in view of growing AI. In other words, I’m wondering: What are the risks that our capacity for curiosity, agency, critical thinking, sourcing, and vetting information, and evaluative decision-making might deteriorate as AI usage increases? How big, tractable, and neglected are these risks, especially as AI systems may reduce our incentives to develop or use these skills?

My intuition is it could drive challenges even with aligned AI and without direct misuse—we as humans could disempower ourselves voluntarily out of mere laziness or lost skills. The risk could be aggravated if, following the “Intelligence Curse” logic, the “powerful actors” see no reasons to keep humans epistemically capable. Besides, it could threaten AI alignment if our capacity to make informed decisions about AI governance diminishes.

I’m now only learning the EA ways and hopefully in some time will be able to myself evaluate whether this is a valid issue or I’m just doomsaying. However, if I imagine that for AI to go well we need both AI aligned with humans and humans evolved for AI, I’m under the impression that current EA efforts lean towards the former more than to the latter. Is my estimate sensible?

Far from claiming to have conclusive evidence, I've made some observations to fuel the above subjective impression. I draw them from reflecting on the information bubble I’m building around myself as I’m now delving into Effective altruism.

For example, as I searched for skilled volunteering opportunities, I reviewed 20 AI orgs through EA-related opportunities boards (EA, 80,000 Hours, ProbablyGood, AISafety, BlueDot Impact, Consultants for Impact). I tried to be impartial, though if I had any bias, it was toward preferring work on epistemic resilience issues. Of these organizations, I found 4 that tackle the issue more or less explicitly—focusing on the human side—compared to 16 that seem to mainly address the AI side.

Also following 80,000 Hours problem profiles and AI articles, BlueDot Impact Future of AI course, EA Forum digest and several AI newsletters of the recent 1-2 months, supplied with some express googling, I extracted 5 more or less explicit mentions on the topic of preparing humans for AI. While I didn’t count precisely, the proportion of articles focusing on AI-side problems (e.g., compute, AI rights, alignment) seemed subjectively much higher. 2 of those 5 specifically tackle intentional misuse, and the rest 3—more general changes in cognitive patterns including but not limited to malevolent usage, e.g., Michael Gerlich’s 2025 study “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking”. I am asking about the latter 3—broader implications for our thinking without bad intentions as a key risk factor.

Does EA community have any view on the topic of our readiness to use AI without degrading? Is my impression about EA community leaning more towards the AI side of the issue vs. the human side of it sensible? Is it a problem, worth exploring further? Are there any drafts on the topic that wait to be published?