>agency is working backwards from your end goal and doing everything necessary to achieve it without waiting for someone to give you permission.
You got permission though. You made it into Purdue. Then you were accepted to ALLFED, then to Generator, then to BlueDot, then as a mentor at SPAR. Perhaps you mean it more tactically, as in, once you're already within an elite institution and there are tasks lying around to be done with no one assigning them?
This is relevant to me because I'm not in an elite institution, and it would be several years before I could be in one. All that stuff is credential and legible talent gated hard, and I don't have that. Perhaps it's just my mistake thinking that "generalist" means something that isn't a role available only to elites and seasoned professionals.
By the way, I looked at your website. Perhaps I fit under "AI Safety & Adjacent Internet Cultures"->"Other Communities"->"Rejected Applicants Feel Discouraged and Opt Out"/"Personal Uncertainty: Career Transitions." I did try to apply to ~10 things over the past 9 months, including Generator, and I did get discouraged. I tried applying to 80k, and was rejected, and I haven't had the heart to try applying to PG. I applied to EAG and got rejected, then I went to a side event and only learned after I attended that I'd been rejected from that too.
The background of almost every EA/AI safety person I've come across has been a seasoned professional or a grad program or top uni student. There is no room for unskilled, degreeless commoners like me. I worry that "skilling up" seems like it would take at least 5 years before I could even consider getting accepted to a paid AI safety program. I don't think I have the runway to do that, so I feel pretty pessimistic about ever being able to contribute with my career until everything's over or the field has run away from me even more.
I don't think there's a "fix" for being discouraged or not having an accessible path. EA cares very much about acquiring only the top and most promising talent, as part of their consequentialist focus. There is no "fix" that would accept me - or the maybe 50% of applicants applying for AI safety stuff in general - that get rejected and not compromise that somehow. So I don't see much of a role for me other than as bycatch.
This is a timed post. Every 5 minutes while writing this post, I had to stop to do 15 push-ups, and when I could no longer complete my required number, I had to upload it. My friends thought this would be a fun challenge, but it means that it will likely be less polished than some of my other output.
Summary: There has been a lot of talk in the EA/AI safety community recently about what it means to be a “generalist,” but many disagree on what this means. In this post, I give my take on the role: a generalist is best understood as someone who does whatever needs to be done to solve a set of problems, rather than as a specific career role.
What is a generalist?
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the need for “generalists” in AI safety. However, people across the space seem to have different understandings of what it means to be a generalist. Some seem to believe that “generalist” is just a weird title to describe a lump of roles that don’t fit anywhere else. Others seem to think it’s a synonym for “fieldbuilder” or “impact multiplier.”
While both of these definitions gesture at what a generalist is, I think it’s wrong to conceive of a generalist as a specific set of tasks. Instead, I think that a generalist is someone who looks for the most important problems to solve and shapes themself across a broad range of skills to address those problems.
I don’t think of this as a definitional shift for what it means to be a generalist. Instead, I view “being a generalist” as a disposition to seeking out the most impactful thing across a broad range of skills, similar to how “being an optimist” is a disposition to thinking good things will happen in the future. This might mean that you can’t easily picture a pig wearing clothes in a children’s book being a generalist, but I think that’s okay.
Success as a generalist requires agency. Ben Kuhn has my favorite explanation of what this means[1]: agency is working backwards from your end goal and doing everything necessary to achieve it without waiting for someone to give you permission. I like this explanation for a few reasons:
Here are some examples of people being generalists:
My hope is that you, as a reader, come away from this post with the intention to address real problems you find in the world.
Some quick nuances and clarifications:
Push-ups
Cate Hall’s definition of agency is something closer to “noticing all the degrees of freedom of life, and then acting on them.” I think Hall gives great life advice, but Kuhn’s explanation is more helpful for someone trying to achieve a specific goal.
But don’t waste too much time thinking.