The funny thing is, (I don't have any inside info here, this is all pure speculation) I wouldn't be shocked if the AMF position ended up being more competitive of the two, despite the lower salary.

Normally non-profit salaries tend to be lower than for-profit salaries even when skills are equivalent because people are altruistic and therefore willing to work for less if the work is prosocial and meaningful and fits their interests. For example, the position of a professor is more competitive and has a higher skill requirement than industrial R&D jobs in the same field, but the latter is more compensated.

I believe that in the EA community this effect is much more pronounced. Some (not all) EA orgs are likely in a somewhat unique position where even if you offer 28-35k and less, you may still be getting applications from people with degrees from top schools who could be making double or triple or quadruple that on the open market, and at some point when you notice that your top applicants are mostly motivated by impact and not money you might become uncertain as to whether or not offering more money actually further improves the applicant pool.

In such an environment,  salaries aren't exactly set by market forces in the same way as a normal job. Instead, they are set by organizational culture and decision making. This is likely all the more true for remote roles, where lack of geography constraints makes expected pay among equally skilled candidates even more variable.

Some people see the situation and think "so let's spend less money and be more cost effective, leaving more money for the beneficiaries and the impact and attracting more donations from our reduced overhead". They aren't in it for money, and they figure all the truly committed candidates who make the best hires aren't either.

Other people see the situation and and think "nevertheless, let's pay people competitive rates, even if we could get away with less" either out of a sense of fair play (e.g. let's not underpay people doing such important work just because there are some people who are altruistic enough to accept that, that's not nice) or the golden rule (e.g. they themselves want a competitive salary and would feel weird offering an uncompetitive one) or or because they figure they will get better candidates or more long term career sustainability and personnel retention that way. 

One of these perspectives is probably the correct one for a given use-case, but I'm not sure which one and reasonable people seem to diverge.

(Of course it's not just personal preference - some organizations, and some positions inside organizations, have more star-power than others and so have this option more. And it's also a cause area thing - some cause areas perceive themselves as more funding-bottlenecked where every $2 in salary is one less mosquito net, while others aren't implicitly making that comparison as much, pouring extra money into their project wouldn't necessarily improve their project and the true bottleneck is something else.
 

Even if one believes they can make more impact at AMF, they would have to give up 20k pounds in salary to pass on the content specialist role. We learned recently to consider earning less, but this may still be quite the conundrum. What do you think?

As far as the personal conundrum goes, I guess you have to ask yourself how much you value earning more, and consider if you'd be willing to pay the difference to buy the greater impact that you'd achieve by taking the position you believe is higher impact to take.

How should we navigate this divide?

I generally think we should almost always prioritize honesty where honesty and tact genuinely trade off against each other. That said, I suspect the cases where the trade-off is genuine (as opposed to people using tact as a bad justification for a lack of honesty, or honesty as a bad justification for a lack of tact) are not that common.

Do you disagree with this framing? For example, do you think that the core divide is something else?

I think that a divide exists, but I disagree that it pertains to recent events. Is it possible that you're doing a typical mind fallacy thing where just because you don't find something to be very objectionable, you're assuming others probably don't find it very objectionable and are only objecting for social signaling reasons? Are you underestimating the degree to which people genuinely agree with what you'd framing as the socially acceptable consensus views. rather than only agreeing with said socially acceptable consensus views due to social capital? 

To be clear, I think there is always a degree to which some people are just doing things for social reasons, and that applies no less to recent events than it does to everywhere else. But I don't think recent events are particularly more illustrative of these camps. 

it appears to me, that those who prioritise AI Safety tend to fall into the first camp more often and those who prioritise global poverty tend to fall into the second camp.

I think this is false. If you look at every instance of an organization seemingly failing at full transparency for optics reasons, you won't find much in the way of trend towards global health organizations. 

On the other hand, if you look at more positive instances (people who advocate concern for branding, marketing, and PR with transparent and good intentions),  you still don't see any particular trend towards global health. (Some examples: [1]][2][3] just random stuff pulled out by doing a keyword search for words like "media", "marketing" etc). Alternatively you could consider the cause area leanings of most"ea meta/outreach" type orgs in general, w.r.t. which cause area puts their energy where.

It's possible that people who prioritize global poverty are more strongly opposed systematic injustices such as racism, in the same sense that people who prioritize animal welfare are more likely to be vegan. It does seem natural, doesn't it, that the type of person who is sufficiently motivated by that to make a career out of it, might also be more strongly motivated to be against racism? But that, again, is not a case of "prioritizing social capital over epistemics", any more than an animal activist's veganism is mere virtue-signaling.  It's a case of genuine difference in worldviews. 

Basically, I think you've only arrived at this conclusion that global health people are more concerned with social capital because you implicitly have the framing that being against the racist-sounding stuff specifically is a bid for social capital, while ignoring the big picture outside of that one specific area. 

Also I think that if you think people are wrong about that stuff, and you'd like them to change their mind, you have to convince them of your viewpoint, rather than deciding that they only hold their viewpoint because they're seeking social capital rather than holding it for honest reasons.

I would highly recommend anyone who is interested in funding small things keep tabs on Charity Entrepreneurship as well as every charity they incubate.