It often seems like software engineering is the most over-represented career in the community. On this ground, at 80,000 Hours we've discouraged more people from going into the area, in order to increase the diversity of skills in the community.
However, recently the following organisations have been trying to hire EA-aligned software engineers:
- Wave
- New Incentives (given a seed grant by GiveWell)
- GiveDirectly
- 80,000 Hours
- CEA
And I don't think any of these groups have found it particularly easy.
Might this mean we're actually short of software engineers after all? It's a bit hard to tell at this point, but if these positions continue to be unfilled, then it'll look that way.
If we are short of engineers, what's the explanation? Some ideas:
- Lots of people in the community have entered the path, but few have become skilled enough to take these positions. In our hiring, it seemed like the choice was between an experienced non-EA or an EA with under a year of experience.
- A large fraction of the community are in the path, but the skill is so useful that we're still short of it.
- Lots of people are in the path, but they prefer to earn to give, either because they believe it's higher impact, or switching to direct work would involve too much sacrifice.
Are you an engineer with over 2yr experience who's involved in effective altruism, and interested in switching to direct work? Get in touch with these organisations.
Additional reason that applies to me and probably other EA engineers: Earning to Give lets your impact be more liquid and therefore better directed.
E2G lets you donate money to whichever organization in whichever cause area you think is best. Signing on to work at CEA means you think (impact at CEA) + (donating ?5-15k to Best Charity) is better than (donating 30-60k to Best Charity).
If you think CEA (or New Incentives, or Wave or whatever) is The Most Optimal Charity, easy decision. But it's not clear why the math would work out if you think X-risk, animal charities, or basic science is the right cause area... or even if you're into global health/poverty but think GiveWell is better at charity evaluation than you are.
This by the way is what certificates of impact are for, although it's not a practical suggestion right now because it's only been implemented at the toy level.
The idea is to create a system where your comparative advantage, in terms of knowledge and skills, is decoupled from your value system. Two people can be working for whichever org best needs their skills, even though the other best matches their values, and agree to swap impact with each other. (As well as the much more complex versions of that setup that would occur in real life).