Help Rethink Priorities Use Data for Animals, Longtermism, and EA 2021-07-05T17:20:59.662Z
Please Take the 2020 EA Survey 2020-11-11T16:05:51.462Z
US Non-Profit? Get Free* Money From the Gov on 3 Apr! 2020-04-01T18:07:54.351Z
Coronavirus Research Ideas for EAs 2020-03-27T21:01:48.181Z
We're Rethink Priorities. AMA. 2019-12-12T16:09:19.404Z
Rethink Priorities 2019 Impact and Strategy 2019-12-02T16:32:25.324Z
Please Take the 2019 EA Survey! 2019-09-23T17:36:35.084Z
GiveWell's Top Charities Are Increasingly Hard to Beat 2019-07-10T00:34:52.510Z
EA Survey 2018 Series: Do EA Survey Takers Keep Their GWWC Pledge? 2019-06-16T23:04:46.626Z
Is EA Growing? EA Growth Metrics for 2018 2019-06-02T04:08:30.726Z
EA Survey 2018 Series: How Long Do EAs Stay in EA? 2019-05-31T00:32:20.989Z
Rethink Priorities Plans for 2019 2018-12-18T00:18:31.987Z
Open Thread #40 2018-07-08T17:51:47.777Z
Animal Equality showed that advocating for diet change works. But is it cost-effective? 2018-06-07T04:06:02.831Z
Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccines: Appendices and Endnotes 2018-05-08T07:43:43.262Z
Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccines: Exploring Model Uncertainty and Takeaways 2018-05-08T07:42:53.369Z
What is the cost-effectiveness of researching vaccines? 2018-05-08T07:41:10.595Z
How much does it cost to roll-out a vaccine? 2018-02-26T15:33:03.710Z
How much does it cost to research and develop a vaccine? 2018-02-24T01:23:33.601Z
What is Animal Farming in Rural Zambia Like? A Site Visit 2018-02-19T20:49:45.024Z
Four Organizations EAs Should Fully Fund for 2018 2017-12-12T07:17:14.418Z
Is EA Growing? Some EA Growth Metrics for 2017 2017-09-05T23:36:39.591Z
How long does it take to research and develop a new vaccine? 2017-06-28T23:20:04.289Z
Can we apply start-up investing principles to non-profits? 2017-06-27T03:16:49.074Z
The 2017 Effective Altruism Survey - Please Take! 2017-04-24T21:01:26.039Z
How do EA Orgs Account for Uncertainty in their Analysis? 2017-04-05T16:48:45.220Z
How Should I Spend My Time? 2017-01-08T03:22:46.745Z
Effective Altruism is Not a Competition 2017-01-05T02:11:23.505Z
Semi-regular Open Thread #35 2016-12-30T22:28:48.381Z
Why I Took the Giving What We Can Pledge 2016-12-28T00:02:57.065Z
The Value of Time Spent Fundraising: Four Examples 2016-12-23T04:35:25.797Z
What is the expected value of creating a GiveWell top charity? 2016-12-18T02:02:16.774Z
How many hits does hits-based giving get? A concrete study idea to find out (and a $1500 offer for implementation) 2016-12-09T03:08:25.796Z
Thoughts on the Reducetarian Labs MTurk Study 2016-12-02T17:12:44.731Z
Using a Spreadsheet to Make Good Decisions: Five Examples 2016-11-26T02:21:29.740Z
Students for High Impact Charity: Review and $10K Grant 2016-09-27T21:05:44.340Z
A Method for Automatic Trustworthiness in Study Pre-Registration 2016-09-25T04:22:38.817Z
Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk for Animal Advocacy Studies: Opportunities and Challenges 2016-08-02T19:24:58.259Z
Five Ways to Handle Flow-Through Effects 2016-07-28T03:39:44.235Z
End-Relational Theory of Meta-ethics: A Dialogue 2016-06-28T20:11:52.534Z
How should we prioritize cause prioritization? 2016-06-13T17:03:45.558Z
A Case for Empirical Cause Prioritization 2016-06-06T17:32:43.818Z
Global poverty could be more cost-effective than animal advocacy (even for non-speciesists) 2016-05-31T15:02:32.339Z
More Thoughts (and Analysis) on the Mercy For Animals Online Ads Study 2016-05-27T03:00:29.228Z
.impact's pivot to focus projects 2016-04-29T19:59:47.775Z
Is EA growing? A concrete study idea to find out (and a $100 offer for implementation) 2016-02-21T21:42:28.036Z
Do EAs underestimate opportunities to create many small benefits? 2016-01-25T04:20:10.880Z
EA risks falling into a "meta trap". But we can avoid it. 2015-08-25T15:22:26.620Z
Peter Hurford thinks that a large proportion of people should earn to give long term 2015-08-17T15:42:07.612Z
Moral Economics in Practice: Musing on Acausal Payments through Donations 2015-08-12T17:41:12.855Z


Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Writing about my job: Data Scientist · 2021-07-22T04:07:01.554Z · EA · GW

FWIW I made $187K/yr in total comp (£136K/yr) in Chicago as a data scientist after four years of experience. My starting salary was $83K/yr in total comp (£60K/yr) with no experience. In both jobs, I worked about 30hrs/wk. My day-to-day experience was rather identical to this post.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Writing about my job: Internet Blogger · 2021-07-20T13:25:34.901Z · EA · GW

This is cool, and I think it is underrated as a path. In either case, I wish more people tried out just writing, especially on the EA Forum.

What do you see as the difference, if any, between being an internet blogger and being an independent EA researcher (besides sounding less pretentious)? What would you see as the difference, if any, between being an internet blogger and a journalist?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Notes on EA-related research, writing, testing fit, learning, and the Forum · 2021-07-15T01:08:00.762Z · EA · GW

I definitely agree that one of the best things applicants interested in roles at organizations like ours can do to improve their odds of being a successful researcher is to read and write independent research for this forum and get feedback from the community.

I think another underrated way to acquire a credible and relevant credential is to become a top forecaster on Metaculus, Good Judgement Open, or Facebook’s Forecastapp.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Some 2021 CEA Retention Statistics · 2021-07-09T22:42:43.049Z · EA · GW

Peter Wildeford has done the largest non-manual retention analysis I know, which looked at the percentage of people who answered the EA survey using the same email in multiple years. He found retention rates of around 27%, but cautioned that this was inaccurate due to people using different email addresses each year.

Thanks for citing me, and I'm excited for the new data sources you are looking at.

One thing you might want to add is that I looked at two different approaches. You quote the first approach, but the second approach - which I think is more accurate, and is based on comparing the year people say they joined EA versus the survey take rate for that year - shows that roughly ~60% of EAs still stay around after 4-5 years.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Help Rethink Priorities Use Data for Animals, Longtermism, and EA · 2021-07-06T16:22:11.399Z · EA · GW

Alas, if I were graduating sooner ... In the mean time, will be following closely. 

We'll definitely have more roles open for after you graduate - don't worry!

Oh, and to support the suggested model of a consultancy, one need only look at Data for Progress for an example of a polling arm that has become quite influential (within progressive/leftist circles) for issue messaging

Yes - I think we aspire to be somewhat like Data for Progress, but for effective altruism, though I think we are more wary of blurring between the lines of advocacy and truth-seeking.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on EA needs consultancies · 2021-06-29T12:27:39.257Z · EA · GW

I'm happy to speak with anyone who wants to compete with Rethink Priorities! Feel free to send inquiries to

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Forum update: New features (June 2021) · 2021-06-18T01:30:53.685Z · EA · GW

Easy to not be afraid when you're the player and the scorekeeper!

(BTW this sounds salty from me, but I promise I'm just joking around.)

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Forum update: New features (June 2021) · 2021-06-17T16:33:50.542Z · EA · GW

It does seem like bad incentives that very well-researched pieces can get much less karma than relatively quick comments.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Forum update: New features (June 2021) · 2021-06-17T16:28:47.264Z · EA · GW

people who created posts in that era have seen their karma recalculated without the 10x multiplier.

Worth also noting that these earlier posts didn't benefit from the invention of strong upvoting (or from the increased size of the voting community), so their karma seems a lot below what they would've gotten if they were posted recently.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Forum update: New features (June 2021) · 2021-06-17T13:00:00.122Z · EA · GW

The reason is that Aaron couldn't beat me in karma fair and square, so he had to play dirty.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Humanities Research Ideas for Longtermists · 2021-06-12T21:33:38.181Z · EA · GW


Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Buck's Shortform · 2021-06-10T17:55:29.438Z · EA · GW

This does seem like a good model to try.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Buck's Shortform · 2021-06-10T17:55:13.063Z · EA · GW

I've thought about this before and I would also like to see this happen.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on EA Infrastructure Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-06-04T20:36:25.834Z · EA · GW

I notice that the listed grants seems substantially below $1000/hour; e.g. Rethink getting $250,000 for seven FTEs implies ~$35,000/FTE or roughly $18/hour. *


This is two misconceptions:

(1) we are hiring seven interns but they each will only be there for three months. I believe it is 1.8 FTE collectively.

(2) The grant is not being entirely allocated to intern compensation

Interns at Rethink Priorities currently earn $23-25/hr. Researchers hired on a permanent basis earn more than that, currently $63K-85K/yr (prorated for part-time work).

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Movement building and investing to give later · 2021-06-03T14:02:35.337Z · EA · GW

It definitely does strike me as there needing to be a lot of continued longtermist research and field-building to allow us to be in a good position to deploy a large amount of capital at a critical time. It's not easy to deploy capital overnight.

Sorry if this is a strawman of the "invest to give later" argument or something already addressed, but I think it's important to put out there if it hasn't been already.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on How much do you (actually) work? · 2021-05-22T14:55:13.105Z · EA · GW

I time track ~30hrs a week.

I get ~6hrs a week of "deep work", mainly because I am in management and a lot of management activities are not classically considered deep work.

My efficiency is ~70%.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-20T00:15:30.901Z · EA · GW

Yeah, I think it certainly would be fine to donate to an organization that can make use of your money but not for a year or two. I think this would actually be very helpful to the org as a signal of support and for removing some uncertainty for them, to allow them to actually grow (steadily).

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-15T22:35:44.396Z · EA · GW

How is NIMBYism helpful?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-15T22:34:08.954Z · EA · GW

Can you say more about what kind of wild animal welfare work you would want to see?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-15T22:33:52.806Z · EA · GW

Can you say more about what you think a promising new initiative on PB alternatives might look like?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-15T14:05:10.901Z · EA · GW

I'd add that even if these organizations are already very well funded from Open Phil and the EA Animal Welfare Fund, there still is a lot of value in getting additional donations from other donors...

`1.) diversity of donations is generally important for organizational health, to avoid overreliance on any one funder and to provide more independence from intentional or unintentional pressures from that funder. (That being said, for some organizations, having pressure from these funders is a really good thing, as many times I trust the strategy of these funders more than the strategy of these organizations.)

2.) if you trust an organization and its leadership and are not personally as constrained (say by cause area or mission or need to justify decisions) as the big funders, providing fully unrestricted funding can be much more valuable to the organization per dollar than money received from large institutions in allowing them to try new initiatives, etc. (Though of course you would want to understand more about why these large funders aren't also funding these new initiatives or other ideas.)

3.) some large funders are capped in the amount of a budget they are willing to be for an organization (say max 50%) and it can be much harder to get the other part. By providing money to an organization, you may be unlocking more funding from these larger funders due to the cap. (Though as far as I know the "max 50%" thing is no longer true for Open Phil or any of the EA Funds and I think these funders are much more comfortable now funding very large portions of a budget. However I think this factor still exists to some degree.)

4.) it can be a useful signal to larger funders that individual donors trust the organization enough to support it

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-15T13:57:19.108Z · EA · GW

Operational constraints: Does the charity have enough administrative bandwidth to hire staff or expand programs without straining their systems so much that their effectiveness suffers?


I would think if an organization had operational constraints, it would still have room for more funding, just the funding would be spent on expanding operations (e.g., hiring more operations staff, buying operations software, etc.)

One relevant constraint I can think of that would (hopefully temporarily) affect room for more funding are issues around management / culture / strategy capacity around the speed of hiring - an organization can only spend money to hire and expand so quickly and maybe they are already saturated. Typing this out now, I realize this is probably what you meant anyway.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on CEA’s Community Building Grants are becoming more targeted; the EA Infrastructure Fund will start evaluating grants for some EA groups · 2021-05-12T17:27:32.707Z · EA · GW

Seems very well thought out and justified - thanks for putting this together.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Animal Welfare Fund: Ask us anything! · 2021-05-08T00:16:21.139Z · EA · GW

How much do you think you would've granted if your total fund size at the time was ~$5M instead of ~$2.7M? What if it were ~$20M? (This is getting at whether you are bottlenecked more by funding or by good ideas for using funding.)

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on The State of the World — and Why Monkeys are Smarter than You · 2021-05-03T13:30:16.356Z · EA · GW

FWIW I also got 11/13 (wrong on 6 and 7)

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on CEA update: Q1 2021 · 2021-04-22T07:01:50.319Z · EA · GW

This is really cool to see! Thanks for sharing this level of detail and transparency from one of the most important EA organizations!

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Launching a new resource: 'Effective Altruism: An Introduction' · 2021-04-21T20:40:51.108Z · EA · GW

Other good people to consider: Neil Buddy Shah (GiveWell), James Snowden (GiveWell), Alexander Berger (Open Phil), Zach Robinson (Open Phil), Peter Favorolo (Open Phil), Joey Savoie (Charity Entrepreneurship), Karolina Sarek (Charity Entrepreneurship)

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Launching a new resource: 'Effective Altruism: An Introduction' · 2021-04-21T20:38:20.495Z · EA · GW

I'd be happy to make the case for why Rethink Priorities spends a lot of time researching neartermist topics.

Comment by Peter_Hurford on [deleted post] 2021-04-08T15:36:09.444Z

Apparently you can just edit the tag, so I did!

Comment by Peter_Hurford on [deleted post] 2021-04-08T15:35:28.433Z

"Scalably involving people" might be better

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on AMA: We Work in Operations at EA-aligned organizations. Ask Us Anything. · 2021-04-03T15:58:37.399Z · EA · GW

Worth flagging that we at Rethink Priorities have had no trouble finding many well-qualified candidates when we do our operations hiring.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on New Top EA Causes for 2021? · 2021-04-01T15:21:16.176Z · EA · GW

Strong Middletermism as an EA Priority

Strong middletermism suggests that the best actions are exclusively contained within the set of actions that aim to influence how the next 137 years go (and not a year longer!)

We know that compromising between smart people is a good decision procedure (see "Aumann's agreement theorem" also see how ensemble models generally outperform any individual models). Given that many smart people support near-term causes and many smart people support longtermist causes, I suggest that the highest impact causes will be found in what I call middletermism.

Another important issue is that our predictive track record gets worse as a function of time - increasing time means increasing error. Insofar as we are trying to balance expected impact and robustness of impact calculations, this suggests a time at which error will balance out impact. In my calculations, this occurs exactly 137 years from now. Thus middletermism only focuses on these 137 years.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Some quick notes on "effective altruism" · 2021-03-25T13:27:37.754Z · EA · GW

Rethink Priorities is pretty close to this! We've done message testing now for many orgs across cause areas... Centre for Effective Altruism, Will MacAskill, Open Phil, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Humane Society for the United States, The Humane League, Mercy for Animals, and various EA-aligned lobbyists. We have a lot of skills and resources to do this well and already have a well-built pipeline for producing this kind of work.

We'd be happy to consider doing more work for other people in EA and the EA movement as a whole!

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on EA Funds has appointed new fund managers · 2021-03-23T21:15:33.347Z · EA · GW

Is the Global Health and Development Fund still going to be just Elie for the foreseeable future? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on EA Funds has appointed new fund managers · 2021-03-23T19:19:48.923Z · EA · GW

Why the secrecy around the identity of the guest managers?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on AMA: Tom Chivers, science writer, science editor at UnHerd · 2021-03-19T02:32:27.603Z · EA · GW

I doubt it will ever be a standard procedure in every opinion piece.


Meaning you think there is a 95% chance that within five years, it won't be the case that The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post will include a quantitative, testable forecast in at least one fifth of their collective articles? 

...Just kidding. Thanks for the well-written and illuminating answer.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on AMA: Tom Chivers, science writer, science editor at UnHerd · 2021-03-12T21:03:49.961Z · EA · GW

Why don't more journalists make concrete, verifiable, quantitative forecasts and then retrospectively assess their own accuracy, like you did here (also see more examples)? Is there anything that could be done to encourage you and other journalists to do more of that?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Don't Be Bycatch · 2021-03-12T20:57:33.360Z · EA · GW

Similar to "Effective Altruism is Not a Competition"

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on How to make people appreciate asynchronous written communication more? · 2021-03-11T16:37:13.254Z · EA · GW

What is wrong with recording the audio?

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on EA Funds is more flexible than you might think · 2021-03-11T04:00:08.647Z · EA · GW

That's great to hear - I did not know that

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Total Funding by Cause Area · 2021-03-10T01:57:25.348Z · EA · GW

Do you feel that the numbers I'm using are misrepresentative? I will do my best to address limitations below.

You might be able to use donation data from the EA Survey, to better capture individual EA giving.

One issue is that a lot of these areas have very large individual donors that aren't captured by these statistics or even in the EA Survey - for example, there is an individual donor who gives about the same annual amount to animal welfare as all of OpenPhil. (But then of course, there is also the question of who counts as "EA".)


Do you disagree in general with the strategy of allocating my personal donations on the basis of where I expect to differ the most from the community regarding #1?

I imagine your personal views about the difference in the value of cause areas will dominate this, given that causes might be 10x different whereas these gaps are only 5x at most.

Also I think the choice of what you are funding within each cause also matters a lot.

I think this approach makes sense from a neglectedness standpoint, though I am worried that it wouldn't account for neglectedness outside of EA and neglectedness within cause. I'm not sure if this makes sense from a donor collaboration/coordination/cooperation standpoint, given that it seems like you are deliberately offsetting other people's donations.

"Cause area" is also a pretty weird/arbitrary unit of analysis if you think about it.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on How many hits do the hits of different EA sites get each year? · 2021-03-09T08:25:09.260Z · EA · GW

"Is EA Growing? EA Growth Metrics for 2018" has some data on this, and I look forward to doing it again for 2019-2020

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on EA Funds is more flexible than you might think · 2021-03-05T21:32:38.626Z · EA · GW

How do you feel about there being very few large institutional donors in effective altruism? This seems like it could be a good thing as it allows specialization and coordination, but also could be bad because it means if a particular person doesn't like you, you may just be straight up dead for funding. It also may be bad for organizations to have >80% of their funding come from one or two sources.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Retention in EA - Part III: Retention Comparisons · 2021-02-07T04:32:29.478Z · EA · GW

Don't forget the 2018 EA Survey analysis  that suggests a ~40%  EA drop out rate after 4-5 years.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Money Can't (Easily) Buy Talent · 2021-01-25T17:07:07.839Z · EA · GW

I do not yet know of any research that is the result of your recent hiring that actually seems useful to me (which is not very surprising, it's not been very long!). 

Yes, naturally that would take more than two months to produce!


I also think Rethink Priorities is tapping into a talent funnel that was built by other people, and is very much not buying talent "on the open market" so to speak.

I'd dispute that on two counts:

1.) I do think we have been able to acquire talent that would not have been otherwise counterfactually acquired by other organizations. For the clearest example, Luisa Rodriguez applied to a fair number of EA organizations and was turned down - she was then hired by us, and now has gone on to work with Will Macaskill and will soon be working for 80,000 Hours. Other examples are also available though I'd avoid going into too much detail publicly to respect the privacy of my employees. We also are continuing to invest on further developing talent pipelines across cause areas and think our upcoming internship program will be a big push in this direction.

2.) Even if we concede that we are using a talent funnel created by other people, I don't think it is a bad thing. There still is a massive oversupply of junior researchers who could potentially do good work, and a massive undersupply of open roles with available mentorship and management. I think anything Rethink Priorities could be doing to open more slots for researchers is a huge benefit to the talent pipeline even if we aren't developing the earlier part of the recruitment funnel from scratch (though I do think we are working on that to some extent).

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Money Can't (Easily) Buy Talent · 2021-01-24T19:24:07.484Z · EA · GW

I think Rethink Priorities is a very clear counterexample.

We were able to spend money to "buy" many longtermist researchers, some of which would not have counterfactually worked in the area. Plus our hiring round data indicates that there are many more such people out there that we could hire, if only we weren't funding constrained.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Ask Rethink Priorities Anything (AMA) · 2020-12-17T07:06:47.899Z · EA · GW

Yes, I think all the things you mentioned are projects that are "within the scope" of RP (not that we would necessarily do them). We see our scope as being very broad so that we can always do the highest impact projects.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Ask Rethink Priorities Anything (AMA) · 2020-12-17T03:27:53.043Z · EA · GW

Yeah, our broader theory of change is mostly (but not entirely) based on improving the output of the EA movement, and having the EA movement push out from there.

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Ask Rethink Priorities Anything (AMA) · 2020-12-16T23:12:50.588Z · EA · GW

Just want to say that Rethink Priorities is committed to being able to successfully integrate remote Australians and we'd be excited to have more APAC applicants in our future hiring rounds!

Comment by Peter Wildeford (Peter_Hurford) on Ask Rethink Priorities Anything (AMA) · 2020-12-16T21:36:02.479Z · EA · GW

Hey EdoArad, it looks like you posted a lot of these questions twice and the questions have been answered elsewhere.Here are some answers to the questions I don't think were posted twice:


These categories seem to have some overlapping but different research methodologies and needed skillsets in use. Say, work that more estimation based on gathering quantitative evidence, philosophical work that draws from academic moral philosophy or building world-models from pieces of qualitative evidence. Do you have a model for a categorization for different types of research?

We do not currently have a model for that.


How do you expect work on "Big considerations" to propagate? e.g, in the case of invertebrate sentience, did you have an explicit audience in mind and a resulting ToC?

In the case of invertebrate sentience, our audience would be the existing EA-aligned animal welfare movement and big funders, such as Open Philanthropy and the EA Animal Welfare Fund. I hope that if we can demonstrate the cause area is viable and tractable, we might be able to find new funding opportunities and start moving money to them. The EA Animal Welfare Fund has already started giving money to some invertebrate welfare projects this year and I think our research was a part of those decisions.