本文探讨了“AI政策”领域职业发展的复杂性，强调了在AI政策制定过程中不同环节的重要性。作者指出，对AI政策感兴趣的人应明确自己的兴趣点，并针对不同环节的需求制定相应的职业规划。文章将政策制定过程分解为从构想到实施的多个阶段，强调了研究、倡导和实施等不同角色的技能差异，并建议通过实践和与业内人士交流来探索适合自己的职业道路。最终，文章鼓励读者在AI政策领域做出深思熟虑的选择，以实现个人价值。

💡 AI政策并非单一领域，而是一个由构想到实施的复杂流程，包括思想产生、政策制定、游说、立法、实施和监督等多个环节。

🤔 不同的职业角色在AI政策制定过程中扮演着不同的角色，例如研究人员需要深厚的专业知识，倡导者需要政治技能和人际关系，实施者则需了解官僚流程并具备人际交往能力。

🔍 对于有意从事AI政策工作的人，作者建议明确自己的兴趣点，并通过与业内人士交流、参与相关工作等方式，探索适合自己的职业道路，从而避免盲目追求。

🤝 作者提供了职业规划建议，鼓励读者通过实践来了解自己是否具备相关技能，并强调深思熟虑和精准规划的重要性，而非盲目追求“AI政策”这一模糊概念。

Published on July 14, 2025 11:19 PM GMT

Though invariably I like the people who say it, I don’t like it when people tell me they want to “work in AI policy,”^[1] then ask for career advice. “AI policy” doesn’t mean much on its own — the policy process is a pipeline, and what you should do depends on the part(s) of the pipeline you’re interested in.

The idea that I’m sketching out here — roughly, “there’s a whole ecosystem out there, from ideation to advocacy to implementation” — isn’t a new one and isn’t originally mine. Previous work has mapped the AI governance landscape much more comprehensively than I could: to name two, this EA forum post is a good intro, and this one has a super-detailed map.

Because I’ve found myself having this conversation with enough bright undergrads who “want to work in AI policy,” though, I thought this was still worth writing up.^[2]

What does “AI Policy” Mean?

You can think of policy, at a high level, as a process that roughly goes from abstract ideas to concrete implementation.

People have ideas, others translate those ideas into policy language, and still others then try to convince policymakers to implement them. There are advocates and lobbyists and organziers who try to influence legislators, to say nothing of the legislators and rulemakers themselves. Once laws or rules are implemented, someone has to enforce them.

The real deal is much less linear than that, of course — people can do multiple steps, you’ll sometimes cycle back around. There are also roles that touch the entire pipeline, like journalists, grantmakers, or field-builders.^[3]

Different roles deserve different paths

Most people who say they want to “work in AI policy” are actually drawn to one or two specific parts of this pipeline. Figure out which part(s), then test fit accordingly.

The career paths look different at each stage. Research roles need deep subject matter expertise and need to enjoy wonking out on details. Advocacy roles need political skills and relationship-building. Implementation roles need understanding of bureaucratic processes… and also relationship-building. You might not know whether you have or could develop those skills. That’s okay! it just means you should find a cheap way to find out if you do.

Talk to people who’re working in parts you’re interested in. Spend an hour doing what you’d do in that job and see if you hate it. Take 20 minutes to think through and fill out a memo on your career — I’m no Thomas Kalil, but I’ll leave comments if you share it with me!^[4]

Just be deliberate and really think through the ways you can help the most, instead of throwing darts at some shapeless blob you’ve labeled “AI policy.” Future you will thank you.

1. ^{^}

   I use “AI” here because that’s what I’m into — you can substitute any other kind of policy in for it, if you’d like.

2. ^{^}

   I’m also in the target audience, because writing helps me think.

3. ^{^}

   Again, this forum post is a good resource!

4. ^{^}

   Email a link to hi@henryjosephson.com. I can offer to do this publicly because almost nobody that I’ve offered this to has ever taken me up on it. People always promise to, and then never deliver. I’ve shamelessly stolen this from Michael Aird, who helps run RAND’s Technology and Security Policy Program, on the theory that I’d be less intimidating than he is.

Discuss