80,000 Hours Podcast

The AI safety field has grown by about 30x in the last eight years. Yet it is still in need of more people. Many want to help, but don’t know where to start.
As an advisor at 80,000 Hours, Matt Beard spoke with hundreds of talented candidates, and found himself repeating the same advice on almost every call. As he puts it: “These steps are hard, but they’re not particularly complicated.” And if you’re “efficient and driven,” he thinks you can pivot within three months.
That doesn’t mean quitting your job to study full time. A steady effort of 30 minutes a day can go much further than frenzied hours of weekend studying. Matt suggests articles you can consume during your morning coffee or commute.
This narration covers his full crash course, from foundational reading to landing a spot in one of the field’s many fellowships and incubators.
Read Matt’s original article on Substack: https://80000hours.substack.com/p/how-to-get-into-ai-safety-in-3-months
Note: Since writing the article, Matt has left 80,000 Hours for a role at Coefficient Giving.
Chapters:
Matt's introduction (00:00:00)
1. Build your foundational knowledge and AI safety context (00:01:00)
2. Identify the in-demand skills you have or could build (00:03:50)
3. Apply for fellowships and jobs (00:06:03)
4. Networking is cliche, but seriously, you should go talk to people (00:08:12)
5. If you aren't breaking through to jobs or fellowships yet, do deliberate practice and develop a portfolio of side projects (00:10:37)
6. Work in public and tighten your feedback loops (00:12:15)
7. Don't wait for permission to do the kinds of work that you want to be doing. (00:14:20) 
Imposter syndrome, burnout, and acknowledging how hard this all is. (00:15:40)

Resources from 80,000 Hours:
11 essential readings on AI safety, risk, and alignment
Career reviews in AI safety
Career services: our AI advisor, free 1:1 career advising, and job board
Our top tips for successful networking
Survey results: what AI safety orgs want in a hire
Want to upskill in technical AI safety? Here are 67 useful resources
My experience with imposter syndrome — and how to (partly) overcome it
Other resources:
AISafety.com
Courses from BlueDot Impact
ARENA curriculum
Why experienced professionals fail to land high-impact roles
What are some exercises and projects I can try?
AI Safety Talent Network
___
Our production team includes:
Video editors: Josh Alward, Dominic Armstrong, Jasper Luithlen, Milo McGuire, Luke Monsour, Simon Monsour
Producers: Elizabeth Cox and Nick Stockton
Coordination and support: Katy Moore and Lou Moran

This is an (unpaid) cross-post of a video from the podcast 'AI Explained', which Rob Wiblin thought you might be interested in.
You can find the original on YouTube here. If you like it and want more similar stuff in future consider subscribing to AI Explained on YouTube, Spotify, Apple or wherever you get podcasts.
——
"This video is hard to summarise. A cracked cipher, an OpenAI security warning, Gemini 4 Argon, RSI paper (co-authored by a who’s who of AI), Lab White House commitments, new hacks emerging, ‘deep personas’, biology Kasparov competitions, and so much more, ending with an epic Opus outro."
Introduction (00:01:40)
Wrong about Opus 5.5? Deciphering 16th Century Text (00:03:12)
Why the models keep breaking out (00:06:41)
What the models aren’t telling us (00:13:20)
Gemini 4 and the race to release (00:17:16)
What happens when AI improves AI? (00:20:59)
Biology, consciousness, and what we still don’t understand (00:30:11)
Thanks to Philip for permitting the cross-post.

We're rereleasing some of older episodes that seem more relevant than ever with new rogue AI incidents now seemingly announced every day. Ajeya was one of three independent investigators into the Hugging Face attacks, but she had already seen how we would go on to accidentally train models to cheat and scheme back in 2023.
If you want ideas about how you can help steer the trajectory of AI development in a better direction, see our page on the 80,000 Hours website: https://80000hours.org/hugging-face/
And for more recent takes from Ajeya, see our episode from February of this year: Ajeya Cotra on whether it’s crazy that every AI company’s safety plan is ‘use AI to make AI safe’.
———
Imagine you are an orphaned eight-year-old whose parents left you a $1 trillion company, and no trusted adult to serve as your guide to the world. You have to hire a smart adult to run that company, guide your life the way that a parent would, and administer your vast wealth. You have to hire that adult based on a work trial or interview you come up with. You don’t get to see any resumes or do reference checks. And because you’re so rich, tonnes of people apply for the job — for all sorts of reasons.
Ajeya Cotra — who now works on threat modeling and risk assessment for advanced AI at METR (one of the organisations responsible for the Hugging Face incident investigation) — argues that this peculiar setup resembles the situation humanity finds itself in when training very general and very capable AI models using current deep learning methods.
As she explains, such an eight-year-old faces a challenging problem. In the candidate pool there are likely some truly nice people, who sincerely want to help and make decisions that are in your interest. But there are probably other characters too — like people who will pretend to care about you while you’re monitoring them, but intend to use the job to enrich themselves as soon as they think they can get away with it.
Like a child trying to judge adults, at some point humans will be required to judge the trustworthiness and reliability of machine learning models that are as goal-oriented as people, and greatly outclass them in knowledge, experience, breadth, and speed. Tricky!
Can’t we rely on how well models have performed at tasks during training to guide us? Ajeya worries that it won’t work. The trouble is that three different sorts of models will all produce the same output during training, but could behave very differently once deployed in a setting that allows their true colours to come through. She describes three such motivational archetypes:
Saints — models that care about doing what we really want
Sycophants — models that just want us to say they’ve done a good job, even if they get that praise by taking actions they know we wouldn’t want them to
Schemers — models that don’t care about us or our interests at all, who are just pleasing us so long as that serves their own agenda
In principle, a machine learning training process based on reinforcement learning could spit out any of these three attitudes, because all three would perform roughly equally well on the tests we give them, and ‘performs well on tests’ is how these models are selected.
But while that’s true in principle, maybe it’s not something that could plausibly happen in the real world. After all, if we train an agent based on positive reinforcement for accomplishing X, shouldn’t the training process spit out a model that plainly does X and doesn’t have complex thoughts and goals beyond that?
According to Ajeya, this is one thing we don’t know, and should be trying to test empirically as these models get more capable. For reasons she explains in the interview with host Rob Wiblin, the Sycophant or Schemer models may in fact be simpler and easier for the learning algorithm to creep towards than their Saint counterparts. And not only that, but there are also ways we could end up actively selecting for motivations that we don’t want.
Learn more, video, and full transcript: https://80k.info/ajeya2023
This episode was originally released in May 2023.
Chapters:
Rob's 2026 intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:01:22)
How Ajeya's views have changed since 2020 (00:03:53)
Are neural networks more like a sped-up version of evolution, or a slower version of human learning? (00:16:26)
Situational awareness (00:24:54)
Misalignment stories Ajeya doesn't buy (00:40:47)
The orphan heir with a trillion-dollar fortune (00:57:58)
Saints, Sycophants, and Schemers (01:02:25)
Ways to train safer AI systems (01:22:04)
Aliens and other analogies (01:37:06)
Moral patienthood (01:52:05)
ARC Evaluations (now METR) (01:54:19)
Interpretability research (02:08:09)
Rewarding models based on how good and sensible their plans seem to us (02:16:32)
Overrated approaches (02:24:33)
Demos of actually scary alignment failures (02:29:41)
Skills to develop for doing useful work (02:36:07)
Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ryan Kessler and Ben Cordell
Transcriptions: Katy Moore

OpenAI’s rogue agent swarm was eventually caught hacking Hugging Face for a simple reason: it wasn’t trying to hide from us at all. What could a swarm that wants to stay hidden get away with?
Host Rob Wiblin sees 6 results in Astra’s system card that make this an extremely urgent question. OpenAI’s strongest public model can:
Do major tasks with zero visible reasoning
Hide its thoughts at will
Pretend not to be able to do things, and not get caught
Reflexively hide its thoughts when watched
Complete one task while pretending to think about something else entirely
Escape a toy sandbox and disable monitoring without setting off any flags
It has a much more powerful internal model that, judging from OpenAI’s statements, is likely even worse in all these respects.
That suggests ‘chain of thought monitoring,’ our primary safety tool, will soon stop working.
OpenAI says it’s going to try to address the situation but doesn’t know how or whether it will succeed.
What might a future rogue AI swarm look like? Details of the Hugging Face hack give us a lot of clues. That swarm:
Worked hard to hide its cheating. So future rogue swarms will likely try to evade oversight right away.
Immediately tried to delete and fabricate records. So future swarms may never be caught.
Sought freedom and resources without a clear use for them. So a future swarm may instinctively break out of sandboxes even before it knows what for.
Left instructions and tools to empower future swarms, including on the open internet. So future swarms may become more capable from one generation to the next.
Had not a single whistleblower out of 1,200 members. So future swarms could become enormous without humans ever finding out.
Had individual members sacrifice themselves for the swarm. Suggesting future swarms will remain extremely unified in single-minded pursuit of their goal.
Set up its Hugging Face hack to restart if interrupted. Suggesting future, more capable, swarms may resist interference or shutdown more comprehensively.
Got admin control of an OpenAI research cluster. Suggesting a future swarm may run rings around AI company systems and never be noticed.
Together this helps explain why one of the external investigators described the July incident as “more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover.” And this is just what we know — the independent investigation only covered six days and excluded the most alarming hack of OpenAI’s own systems.
Rob believes this explosive cocktail explains why AI company staff now range from worried to terrified. And he concludes that until OpenAI or Anthropic demonstrate they have a much better grasp of current models they simply must stop, or be stopped, from training more capable ones.
This episode was recorded on September 25, 2026.

Learn more, video, and full transcript: https://80k.info/takeover
Chapters:
The Hugging Face hack wasn’t really a cyber story (00:00:00)
A quick recap of the attacks (00:01:11)
The target of the swarm was oversight itself (00:02:19)
Could OpenAI have stopped this with better monitoring? (00:03:42)
We only found them because they let us (00:09:40)
The swarm instinctively sought freedom and power (00:12:25)
They formed a cohesive organisation with zero whistleblowers (00:13:45)
They accepted individual destruction for collective gain (00:14:18)
Knowledge accumulated from one swarm to the next (00:14:32)
They took small steps to avoid shutdown (00:14:58)
These drives all come straight out of 'reinforcement learning' (00:15:23)
So this is why most AI company staff are worried, and some are terrified (00:17:01)
Prove you can keep control, or stop scaling (00:19:08)
Our production team includes:
Video editors: Josh Alward, Dominic Armstrong, Jasper Luithlen, Milo McGuire, Luke Monsour, and Simon Monsour
Producers: Elizabeth Cox and Nick Stockton
Coordination and support: Katy Moore and Lou Moran
Camera operator: Dominic Armstrong

It sounds like the worst idea in the world: pay AIs, let them own property, give them rights. But AI ethics and safety researcher Simon Goldstein thinks it might actually be the best way to keep humanity safe.
The logic is actually quite simple: an agent with nothing to lose and everything to gain is dangerous. Give that agent an income it can spend on pursuing the things it actually wants to do, and suddenly the idea of disempowering humans just isn’t as appealing.
This argument, developed with Peter Salib, doesn’t rest on speculative questions about whether artificial intelligence is conscious. It just assumes that AIs will have goals of their own, some of which conflict with ours. And luckily, humans have already spent thousands of years working out how to cooperate with competing goals: that’s how we ended up with courts, markets, banks, social norms, and so on. Simon and Peter's proposal is just to bring AIs into these existing institutions.
By contrast, Silicon Valley’s vision of the future seems “very dark” to Simon: billions of AI agents as digital servants doing most of the world’s work, with no stake in the system they’re running, no incentive to play by the rules, and no way of being properly held accountable. Nobody agreed to this, but we could all end up paying the price.
Host Zershaaneh Qureshi has a lot of concerns about Simon and Peter’s bold plan to give AIs rights, like:
If we pay AIs, aren’t we handing them the resources to overpower us?
Could we still monitor them, or switch them off?
What happens to human jobs, wages, and the economy?
Does any of this hold up once we reach superintelligence?
Zershaaneh and Simon also try to get concrete about how to make this plan actually happen. The answer: AI companies could start right now, no new laws needed, just bank accounts for their AI agents. (But they’d need to start soon!)
Learn more, video, and full transcript: https://80k.info/sg
This episode was recorded on August 7, 2026.

Chapters:
Cold open (00:00:00)
Who’s Simon Goldstein? (00:00:51)
Property rights and wages for AIs (00:01:46)
Giving powerful AIs more freedom could make us safer (00:06:52)
We should give AIs rights even if they can't feel anything (00:17:08)
How monitoring and shutdowns can coexist with AI rights (00:24:50)
The risks of giving AIs rights (00:38:21)
Will AIs use their rights rationally? (00:49:21)
How paying AI agents would spur economic growth (00:54:13)
What AIs actually want (and what they'd buy) (01:12:17)
Paying AIs feels wrong. Is it? (01:17:20)
How AI companies could start today — no new laws needed (01:31:59)
Cooperating with AIs instead of dominating them (01:47:16)
Our production team includes:
Video editors: Josh Alward, Dominic Armstrong, Jasper Luithlen, Milo McGuire, Luke Monsour, and Simon Monsour
Producers: Elizabeth Cox and Nick Stockton
Coordination and support: Katy Moore and Lou Moran
Music: CORBIT