A common request I get working at 80,000 Hours asks how people can contribute to effective altruist related research while students, or working in another career. I often find this hard to answer because I don't have an suitable project to hand.
All of the research groups have found that doing high quality work is more difficult than expected, and those people who just dabble rarely produce breakthroughs. This is because it's challenging work that doesn't suit everyone, and for people who it does suit, they get better as it the longer they spend on it.
What can even the cleverest short-term volunteer contribute to theoretical physics? Probably nothing.
However, this is not theoretical physics, and I think a wide range of people can make useful contributions by uncovering important information we are currently ignorant of.
What are some ways?
- Produce a shallow review of a career path few people are informed about, using the 80,000 Hours framework. We score career paths on the following criteria out of 5:
- Earning potential.
- Direct impact.
- Satisfaction.
- Advocacy potential.
- Career capital (comprising skills, credentials, network, exit opportunities and character).
- Ease of competition.
- We then write up a profile with the following heading:
- What are the pros of this career?
- What are the cons of this career?
- Who would be best suited to it?
- What important things are we still uncertain about?
- You will probably need both online research and interviews with people taking that path. I made a list of resources we regularly consult.
- If you spend a few days looking into a career path you might want to take, using these criteria, you can probably produce a blog post other people will find useful, and that we could adapt into a profile on our website in future.
- Become highly informed about an approach for improving the world, or a problem people could work on, and assess it on the following criteria:
- Importance (how much good might be done solving the problem?)
- Neglectedness (who is already working on it, including indirectly, and how good are they; is there much left to do?)
- Tractability (how hard is the problem to solve; how expensive are the possible solutions; how likely are they to work; do we have suitable skills or could we develop them?)
- If you can combine the above into a meaningful cost-effectiveness estimate then go ahead, but if not, don't despair.
- Write up a summary of the above information with citations, comment on whether you think the topic deserves further research (i.e. could it be better than what some people are already doing), and what the key remaining questions are.
- Concrete numbers (even if estimates) are particularly useful inasmuch as any can be found.
- I would have suggested evaluating charities, except that this usually requires access to staff and sensitive information which they aren't willing to provide to anyone who asks.
I'm starting multiple exploratory research efforts looking at global catastrophic risks (GCRs) in the coming months.
Studying the history of global catastrophic risks to learn if it's possible to construct reference classes for GCRs, and learn from past efforts in what works and what doesn't in terms of strategy and policy for dealing with them. This is currently my active project. I've written up approximately 3,000 words on the subject so far in draft essays.
Learning more about what I'm calling 'intersectional risks', but what is essentially figuring out what are the best questions we should be asking relevant to the GCRI's integrated assessment project.
Building a network of experts or specialists to use as references regarding risks from emerging technologies.
Finding a way to contribute to the GCR Community Project.
Hypothesizing protocols for safely dealing with information hazards, as information hazards are something I've already encountered in the course of this research, and something I anticipate I will eventually have to deal with.
Other research topics I'm tabling, not related to GCRs, but to effective altruism:
The viability of seeding more EA hub-cities, like Berkeley, Basel, Oxford, and Melbourne.
The potential for Giving Games in causes outside of poverty alleviation, such as for high-impact science, animal advocacy, and existential risk mitigation.
Do you still recommend these approaches or has your thinking shifted on any? Personally, I'd be especially interested if you still recommend to "Produce a shallow review of a career path few people are informed about, using the 80,000 Hours framework. ".
Related: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/j0/map_of_open_spaces_in_effective_altruism/
What if we want to add input or specificity to a career you've already written about?
That's also good.