Weaver
Bio
Weaver is a Rationalist and EA writer and a full time active duty Army Officer. He is a part of Philly Rats and EA Philly(barely) and you can read all of his writing through his author website: http://storyweaver.quest/ (links to Royal Road fiction)
Sect Leader is an attempt to shovel EA principles into a fantasy narrative(a nod to HPMOR), everything else is just for fun.
I'm founding two companies:
Riverfolk Publishing which is an indie imprint, initially for myself. We've expanded to four authors and our first book launches in September.
Red Cell EA, which is an EA focused consultancy. This is still in the planning stages.
How others can help me
I'm looking for startup grants to see if Red Cell EA can turn into viable full time work.
How I can help others
I can help you if you need help writing fiction, getting published or anything LITRPG.
Posts 8
Comments35
Topic contributions2
I think that the short hand of "this person vouches for this other person" is a good enough basis for a lot of pre-screening criteria. Not that it makes the person a shoe in for the job, but it's enough to say that you can go by on a referral.
You might say, this is a strange way to pick people, but this is how governments interview people for national security roles. They check references. They ask questions.
I imagine more questions would be asked to the third party who is 'personally referring' the applicant, leading to a slightly different series of interviews anyway. In my experience, people have to work a lot harder to get a job, than to keep one. I know that it's true with everyone that referred me to just about every position. Then if I perform badly it looks poorly on them, but after a certain time, I'm the one referring people onwards, so I have to make my own assessment of if I'm willing to put my reputation on the line.
I feel like this is an excessively software driven way to do this. I have a suggestion.
Make it a hardware thing.
AI relies on circuitboards and memory and connections etc, so instead of making it something that can be found out using an algorithm, make it a physical key that does a physical thing.
Think of a lock on an obscure door versus a really really good password.
You can brute force any password, given time. Physical access is access.
If you can't even find the widget? Yeah.
The opposite is also important. If the Killswitch needs to be integrated then removed it should be a "this needs to be done once every two years but the rest of the time it's hidden via obscurity".
Also development of AGI, just making it would be difficult so hastening it for no reason? Hmmm.
Honestly, I know many people that aren't smart but still are dedicated and get things done. I would take a dedicated person who can make things happen over someone who sounds great on paper but isn't the best at getting people to understand what they mean.
On the more pressing idea, I think that you should look into becoming a junior operations manager: https://80000hours.org/articles/operations-management/ Operations touches all aspects of EA and if you can make someone work more efficiently, then you're on the right path. This would hopefully give you more exposure to other career paths.
Also don't discount the ability to speak Polish, English, and French. Just having that skillset will help you out a ton. I don't know what the EA community is like in Poland or France, but I'm sure there is someone.
For me full-time work(military) there are certain safety regulations regarding when things need to happen and who needs to sign off on them so they can go ahead. A recent example is when we had an emerging requirement that needed a general to sign off on something otherwise six months of planning for an event would be out the window. The general was out of our chain of command and thus wouldn't need us to do the thing we needed, it would just be good training for his people. We had a requirement, they had a requirement and something got lost in the translation, causing us to either make several high-level phone calls or drop the glass ball.
When I met my boss he has a different but related theory. It's about the steel ball, rubber ball and glass ball.
The steel ball you can drop and it won't break, but you need to pick it up to keep going.
The rubber ball you can keep bouncing down the line.
The glass ball, once broken can't be fixed.
You have to identify which item is which.
I think that the short hand of "this person vouches for this other person" is a good enough basis for a lot of pre-screening criteria. Not that it makes the person a shoe in for the job, but it's enough to say that you can go by on a referral.
You might say, this is a strange way to pick people, but this is how governments interview people for national security roles. They check references. They ask questions.
I imagine more questions would be asked to the third party who is 'personally referring' the applicant, leading to a slightly different series of interviews anyway. In my experience, people have to work a lot harder to get a job, than to keep one. I know that it's true with everyone that referred me to just about every position. Then if I perform badly it looks poorly on them, but after a certain time, I'm the one referring people onwards, so I have to make my own assessment of if I'm willing to put my reputation on the line.