I recently spoke to an applied research engineer at DeepMind who I could put you in touch with. My understanding is that probably you could make better contributions to minimising AI x-risk elsewhere unless you are directly involved with the AI safety team. This is highly dependent on the details of your other potential avenues for contribution, and the exact role. For example, if you end up working very closely with the AI safety team, then this would be a more valuable role than if you were working elsewhere in DeepMind. 

Feel free to message me and I'll connect you. 

It’s tough to turn down an opportunity for career growth, but I would consider what kind of growth you’d get here. Building organizational tech isn’t directly related to research on AI safety, so it’s not a quick path to working on AI x-risk. I’m not sure that the more x-risk focused AI organizations are hiring for organizational tech, though perhaps you could get hired for a more general software position. A better opportunity for career growth might come from applying to LTFF or FTX regrantors to fund a Master’s in ML or independent reskilling.

That said, if you’re not certain about wanting to work on AI safety, there’s plenty of organizations in global poverty, alternative protein, public policy advocacy, and more than need organizational tech. While DeepMind does care about safety, I think their contribution to hastening the onset of AGI is ultimately very dangerous, and I would caution against supporting them in a general organizational capacity.

Have you considered comparing the role at DeepMind with similar roles at e.g. Redwood and Anthropic? I think there is no consensus on which one would be most impactful, but I think both are less controversial than DeepMind (but could be very wrong, definitely not an expert, just would suggest considering >=3 jobs before picking one) 

Why would you want to help build AGI?