Applied Philosophy Benchmark Specialist

$50–63/hrrate as listed

Write and verify expert-level philosophy multiple-choice questions — one correct answer, nine subtly wrong distractors, plus a documented chain-of-thought solution and academic citations. Work is asynchronous and remote through Mercor, with an expected commitment of 10+ hours per week at an observed rate of $50–63/hr.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You'll be assigned to one of two tracks. Question authoring means producing original multiple-choice items in your subdomain — Formal Ontology and Knowledge Representation, AI Ethics, Applied Epistemology, Philosophy of Technology and Robotics, or Philosophy of Science. Each item needs a self-contained prompt, one defensible correct answer, nine plausible-but-wrong alternatives, a difficulty rating (Medium ≈ intro undergraduate, Hard ≈ advanced undergraduate, Expert ≈ postgraduate and above), a step-by-step chain-of-thought solution in markdown, and one to five references from peer-reviewed journals or university repositories. Question verification means auditing pre-written items for accuracy, ambiguity, completeness, and solvability, editing where warranted, and writing a justification for every change.

The hard part is rarely the philosophy — it's the distractors. Nine wrong answers that a strong model or a trained philosopher would find tempting, without any of them being arguably correct under a reasonable alternative reading, is a discipline most academics have not practiced. Items that hinge on interpretive controversy, on a citation the solver can't see, or on the author's preferred framework tend to get sent back.

What the screen looks for

Verifiable credentials and subdomain depth. PhD or doctoral candidacy in philosophy or an adjacent field; a master's can clear the bar with unusually deep specialization. Publications or teaching experience help.
Precision under follow-up. Expect the interview to press on a claim you make — naming positions, distinguishing them cleanly, and knowing where the literature actually stands rather than gesturing at it.
Assessment judgment. Can you tell a question that tests conceptual understanding from one that tests whether the solver read the same secondary source you did?
Written clarity. Concise markdown reasoning that a reviewer can follow without reconstructing your argument.

Logistics

Fully remote, fully asynchronous, no fixed hours. Expected commitment is 10+ hours per week; throughput expectations are per-item rather than per-hour, so sustained availability matters more than a specific schedule. The $50–63/hr band reflects rates observed on this listing and is not a guarantee — Mercor sets final rates by track, subdomain, and credential level.

What they look for

PhD or doctoral candidacy in Philosophy or a closely related field
Deep specialization in at least one of: formal ontology, AI ethics, applied epistemology, philosophy of technology, philosophy of science
Formal logic and rigorous philosophical argumentation
Assessment writing — unambiguous prompts and expert-grade distractors
Precise academic English and markdown-formatted written reasoning
Familiarity with peer-reviewed literature and citation practice in philosophy

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a PhD in Philosophy, or are you currently enrolled as a doctoral candidate in Philosophy?
Doctoral qualification in Philosophy · required
Have you authored peer-reviewed publications in philosophy or taught philosophy at the university level?
Research or teaching experience · preferred
Can you commit to working 10+ hours per week on this project and sustain that schedule for the contract duration?
Availability commitment · required
Do you demonstrate strong written English proficiency, with the ability to express complex philosophical ideas clearly and concisely?
Fluent written English · required

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate understands the gap between surface-level recall and depth assessment, and can construct distractors that expose conceptual gaps rather than test guessing.
A strong answer: The answer should identify a specific philosophical threshold—e.g., distinguishing between familiarity with a theory versus understanding its internal tensions or how it responds to counterargument—and describe how the correct answer and distractors target that distinction rather than just testing who read the text.
Where people lose it: Describing a question that tests whether someone knows a definition or can recite a scholar's name, or offering distractors that are obviously wrong rather than subtly appealing to a real misconception.