Maybe instead of "where people actually listen to us" it's more like "EA in a world where people filter the most memetically fit of our ideas through their preconceived notions into something that only vaguely resembles what the median EA cares about but is importantly different from the world in which EA didn't exist."

Congrats, Sjir!

This is great, thanks so much for writing it.

I like Bostrom's Letter from Utopia

EA in a World Where People Actually Listen to Us

I had considered calling the third wave of EA "EA in a World Where People Actually Listen to Us". 

Leopold's situational awareness memo has become a salient example of this for me. I used to sometimes think that arguments about whether we should avoid discussing the power of AI in order to avoid triggering an arms race were a bit silly and self important because obviously defense leaders aren't going to be listening to some random internet charity nerds and changing policy as a result.

Well, they are and they are. Let's hope it's for the better.

Thanks for writing this, Alene!

The reason I feel excited about dedicating my life to LIC, however, is because I believe we will win. 

Is there something you could share about why you think this? E.g. have analogous projects succeeded before, have the previous cases had judgments indicating that the case would succeed on appeal, etc.?

1. OP Grantees
2. EA Funds
3. I don't think MCF has a database (maybe @Joey 🔸 knows?)  but this post and this post list their grants

1. Yes, thank you, I understand that weighting by budget results in the phenomenon you described. I didn't comment on this since it sounds like ACE is planning to change it anyway.
2. I was referring to the  publicity listed in ACE's review. The stories appear to be about the lawsuit so I am not entirely sure what you mean by "could you provide evidence that this level of publicity was caused by LIC’s lawsuit". See e.g. CNN, Fox.
3. To clarify: I don't care about causing burdens to Costco per se. The reason that burdens are relevant is because future companies might prefer to avoid that burden and instead change their policies. I agree it would be good to have a better model of when this would happen and would be excited for someone to make such a model!

 do you have a sense of how to interpret the differences between options? E.g. I could imagine that basically everyone always gives an answer between 5 and 6, so a difference of 5.1 and 5.9 is huge. I could also imagine that  scores are uniformly distributed between the entire range of 1-7, in which case 5.1 vs 5.9 isn't that big.

 Relatedly, I like how you included "positive action" as a comparison point but I wonder if it's worth including something which is widely agreed to be mediocre (Effective Lawnmowing?) so that we can get a sense of how bad some of the lower scores are.

Nice! My guess is that the most immediate way this data could be useful is that organizations who get funding on the basis of a "meta" theory of change (e.g. funding by OP, EAIF, MCF) get more/less funding because it turns out they are doing more/less to bring people in than expected. So maybe I would start with organizations funded by those groups, along with some other class of organizations to use as a control.