Hmm I spent a good amount of time in big tech, now work in AI, and I minored in philosophy at Berkeley back in the day (Parmenides, Socrates, Plato etc.)

How do I align myself with such a job?

▲

gizajob 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Same - philosopher here please hire me. My bachelors thesis was “Wittgensteinian problems for artificial general intelligence.” Three decades working closely with tech and haven’t failed the Turing test yet.

I think SBF and his education from birth (via his mother) in consequentialism should point to the issues made clear when that ethical approach goes wrong or operates from bad, egoistic data, which it’s generally always doing.

	▲	applicative an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with the last point, but note that Barbara Fried is a law professor with no philosophical training whatsoever - nevertheless she started writing about the matter and is a published notable of sorts. (This is irrelevant except insofar as the topic was 'trained philosophers') Moreover, in her book, she claims not to be consequentialist, quite, but had infected her sons: > Finally, I would like to acknowledge a significant intellectual debt to Joe Bankman and our sons, Sam and Gabe. When Sam was about fourteen, he emerged from his bedroom one evening and said to me, seemingly out of the blue, "What kind of person dismisses an argument they disagree with by labelling it 'the Repugnant Conclusion'?" Clearly, things were not as I, in my impoverished imagination, had assumed them to be in our household. Restless minds were at work making sense of the world around them without any help from me. In the years since, both Sam and Gabe have become take-no-prisoners utilitarians, joining their father in that hardy band. I am not (yet?) a card-carrying member myself, but in countless discussions around the kitchen table, literally and figuratively, about the subject of this book, they have taught me at least as much as I have taught them. More importantly, they have shown me by example the nobility of the ethical principle at the heart of utilitarianism: a commitment to the wellbeing of all people, and to counting each person-alive now or in the future, halfway around the world or next door, known or unknown to us as one. > This book is for all my boys: Joe, Sam, Gabe, and Matt. (Needless to say, 'counting everyone as one' doesn't entail consequentialism, nor have most consequentialists had that principle.) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Facing_Up_to_Scarcity/Q...

▲

dvt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Usually you need to be well-published/cited in the field, so a minor would likely not qualify. People joke around, but philosophers are some of the smartest people I've ever met, and it's not even particularly close. (I graduated ~10 years ago, so most of them are sadly lawyers or in academia these days, though some are engineers or entrepreneurs.)

▲

munk-a 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Genuinely, understanding around philosophy of action has been deeply enriching over my life. To anyone trying to decide on a minor philosophy is always an excellent choice.

	▲	skeledrew 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I got a BA in Philosophy, before going on to get a MS in CS. Would not change any of it.
	▲	applicative an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What texts and problems are you thinking of under that heading?

▲

asdff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You need to use everything at your disposal. Wait for the planets to align and the tea leaves to indicate good success. Don't apply until the chicken bones suggest a good time for someone with your constitution. You are going up against a thousand other candidates more or less equally qualified for a highly vague job description and 350k base salary.

▲

slowmovintarget 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Find non-Utilitarian alternative to Effective Altruism by somehow channeling Dostoevsky? Propriety and Reward?

▲

rawgabbit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Socrates argued if you believe something is evil and powerful people do evil then by definition they are not "powerful" -- they are just "evil". As a corollary, if you believe something is good and the people who do good happen to be the weakest members of society, by definition, they are "powerful" -- it is society that is messed up.

▲

simongr3dal 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Getting the feeling that Socrates had a different definition for "powerful" than most.

	▲	skeledrew 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Philosophers in general tend to have a different (more profound) definition of things than others do.