Richard Möhn
Posts 3
Comments68
Good to know about the small donations! Although I wonder: There are lots of (small) AI safety orgs that have a donate thing on their website and it's easy to donate a small amount. Is this also secretly very inefficient? To make bigger donations I would have to save up and then make a good decision. I prefer a drive-by spray-and-pray approach, personally.
NTI is a good suggestion, too! Even if it's not just bio, at least it's not AI safety. (Nothing against AI safety – as I stated above: I already donate in other ways.)
I like this. The actionable points are a bit buried in the prose, but you describe two ways of going astray that I hadn't thought about. Thank you!
One thing I would always mention is that false negatives are less costly in hiring than false positives. But I guess the article is written for an intermediate level of hiring skill, so that point is taken for granted.
I know there is more nuance in your post, but if I take your title at face value, I would say: When I'm evaluating candidates and I catch you not being honest (ie. lying or distorting the truth), I'm going to reject your application. If I catch you lying outright, I'm never going to consider you again as a candidate. If I find out after you were hired that you lied during the application process, I would probably do my best to get you fired. (I mean the ‘you’ in a general sense. I'm not expecting you, JDLC, would lie.)
If you give honest, but unspecific answers, and it's about an important skill, I'm going to ask you follow-up questions to figure out what's going on.