AI Policy Generalist

About Handshake

Handshake was founded on a simple belief that everyone deserves a path to a great career, regardless of where they went to school or who they know. Today, we power 25 million job seekers, 1 million+ employers, and 1,600 educational institutions.

In 2025, we started Handshake AI and built the fastest-growing AI data business in history. We work directly with frontier AI lab researchers to create evaluations, publish benchmarks, and push the boundary of data. We’ve grown from $0 to ~$1B run rate and pay ~$60M to over 30K individuals every month.

Why join Handshake now

Shape how every career evolves in the AI economy, at global scale, with impact your friends, family and peers can see and feel

Partner hand-in-hand with world-class AI labs, Fortune 500 partners and the world’s top educational institutions

Work together with engineers, scientists, operators, and more from Palantir, Meta, Scale AI, and former YC founders

Build a massive, fast-growing business with billions in revenue

About Handshake AI

Human data is the core infrastructure to AI advancement. Frontier AI labs currently improve model capabilities with various data-intensive post-training techniques. We believe that data spend for AI training will increase by 3-5x in the next few years and continue for much longer as models take on new domains. Handshake AI supports all of the frontier AI labs, working on their most complex data at the largest scale.

About the Role

As an AI Policy Generalist, you will turn complex customer policies into consistent, well-reasoned evaluations of AI model behavior.

You will read user requests, model responses, and relevant conversation history, then determine which policy category best applies. The most interesting cases will not have obvious answers. Two examples may look almost identical until a single word, contextual detail, or difference in intent changes the correct classification.

We are looking for people who enjoy splitting hairs in a healthy way. You form clear opinions, explain precisely why two cases should be treated differently, challenge interpretations respectfully, and change your mind when better evidence emerges. You understand that productive disagreement is not about winning an argument. It is how a team finds the most accurate and consistent interpretation.

This is not rote annotation. Policies cannot anticipate every possible edge case, and good evaluators do not apply them mechanically. You will balance the policy’s text and intent with customer expectations, conversation context, precedent, and team calibration.

The subject matter will vary. One project may involve distinguishing benign assistance from meaningful facilitation of harm. Another may require evaluating whether an interaction reflects ordinary emotional support or unhealthy reliance. A third may focus on nuanced boundaries within sexual-safety policy. Success requires learning each customer’s framework on its own terms rather than carrying assumptions from one domain into another.

What You Will Do

Learn new customer policies, definitions, taxonomies, and evaluation rubrics quickly

Evaluate user requests and AI model responses within the full relevant conversation context

Distinguish between closely related labels, severity levels, and policy boundaries

Select the most defensible classification when a case is genuinely ambiguous

Write concise, evidence-based rationales that cite relevant policy language and conversation details

Identify policy gaps, contradictions, unclear definitions, and emerging edge cases

Raise thoughtful questions when existing guidance does not resolve a case

Participate actively in calibration discussions with evaluators, project leads, policy teams, and researchers

Challenge interpretations respectfully and update your judgment when new guidance or stronger reasoning emerges

Apply customer policy consistently without substituting personal beliefs for the policy standard

Maintain accuracy and attention to detail across repeated evaluations

Incorporate feedback quickly and apply clarified guidance to future work

Help improve evaluation frameworks, examples, decision rules, and quality standards

Move effectively between projects covering different policy domains and customer needs

You May Be a Fit If

You enjoy making precise distinctions between cases that other people might consider equivalent

You notice when one word, contextual detail, or change in intent materially affects the answer

You can hold a strong opinion without becoming attached to being right

You explain judgment calls clearly enough that another person can audit your reasoning

You ask productive questions when a policy is ambiguous instead of guessing or forcing certainty

You can separate your personal views from the standard a customer has asked you to apply

You are comfortable discussing disagreement directly, respectfully, and without making it personal

You can follow the letter of a policy while also understanding its purpose and underlying logic

You remain careful and consistent during repetitive, feedback-heavy work

You learn unfamiliar subject matter quickly and know when additional context is needed

You are intellectually curious, self-directed, and comfortable working in a fast-changing environment

You communicate clearly and precisely in writing

You treat sensitive information and difficult subject matter with maturity and sound judgment

Strong candidates may come from quality assurance, research, editing, law, teaching, operations, trust and safety, content moderation, social science, policy, investigations, compliance, customer support, or other fields that require careful interpretation and defensible decision-making. We care more about how you reason than where you learned to reason.

Nice to Have

Experience evaluating or comparing outputs from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or other language models in a professional capacity

Prior work in AI evaluation, data annotation, RLHF, model quality, trust and safety, policy operations, or content moderation

Experience applying detailed rubrics, taxonomies, regulatory language, editorial standards, or quality frameworks

Familiarity with calibration sessions, inter-rater agreement, quality audits, or adjudication workflows

Experience writing policy guidance, decision trees, evaluation examples, or structured rationales

Comfort working with long conversations, incomplete context, and conflicting evidence

Familiarity with AI safety, responsible AI, or the ways language models can assist, mislead, or cause harm

Prior AI evaluation experience is helpful, but it is not required.

Sensitive-Content Notice

This role involves regular and deliberate engagement with sensitive material. Depending on the project, evaluations may include sexual content, emotional distress, self-harm, suicide, violence, weapons, abuse, exploitation, discrimination, and other potentially disturbing subjects.

The work is conducted within structured evaluation frameworks and professional guidelines. Candidates must be able to engage with this material carefully, responsibly, and sustainably while maintaining sound judgment and consistent work quality.

Role Details

Location: Remote, US

Compensation: $45-55

Employment classification: W-2

Schedule: 8AM - 5PM PT

Weekly commitment: M-F