Angelina Li
Bio
Hiya! I work on data stuff at CEA. I used to be the content lead on the EA Global team at CEA, and before that I did economic consulting. Here's an old website I might update at some point.
Think I'm making a mistake? Want to give me feedback? Here's my admonymous. You can also give feedback for me directly to my manager, JP Addison.
Posts 12
Comments131
- My main uncertainty re: the specific debate question is whether the AW space can absorb an extra $100m in funding anytime soon (e.g. within the next 5 years).
- This seems pretty relevant from the perspective of the ecosystem, but much less relevant to the choices I face as an individual person / donor.
- So the question as written is not the one I care about most for my personal decision-making.
- I’m mostly interested in whether I should be donating differently. In the past few years, I’ve given a substantial chunk of my donations to animal focused charities.
- A lot of that is motivated by being bought-in on the general importance of focusing on non-human animals (particularly small animals), as opposed to ‘near-term’ human welfare (via global health interventions).
- I could imagine reducing my animal focused donations if any of the below happened:
- I changed my mind on the importance / tractability of prioritising welfare improvements for smaller farmed animals (currently what I’m most excited about within the AW space).
- E.g. I haven’t delved into the two envelopes problem as much as I’d like, and I’m worried this might change my mind if I understood this better?
- This is a potential crux because I feel substantially more confused about the current marginal ROI of corporate campaign work for larger animals + wild animal focused work.
- This is mostly because I haven’t spent much time digging into these areas.
- I thought the marginal animal giving opportunities no longer looked that great.
- There are some unusually good GH giving opportunities I haven’t been tracking right now. E.g. I think some of the EA-driven accomplishments with lead exposure have been incredibly exciting.
- I have a general worry that using the donation decision protocol of “FIRST choose a cause area to focus on, and THEN choose the interventions to support” is not quite right and might lead to missed rare opportunities.
- Mostly this seems probably fine from the perspective of an individual donor though. E.g. I’m not aiming purely to maximise the impact of my donations, I’m also aiming to bound the time I spend figuring this out.
- I changed my mind on the importance / tractability of prioritising welfare improvements for smaller farmed animals (currently what I’m most excited about within the AW space).
- I’m not sure yet where I’d give if I updated negatively on the marginal ROI of AW donations. I’d want to think about this more.
- I don’t think I’d change my job in the short term based on this question alone. But it seems plausible this might change what I focus on within my job.
"So it is more important to convince someone to give to e.g. the EA animal welfare fund if they were previously giving to AMF than to convince a non-donor to give that same amount of money to AMF."
I hadn't considered this idea before, am interested in you writing something up here! I'm a bit confused how tractable it is to shift donors from AMF -> AW fund versus [Other charity] -> AMF, but my intuition is the first might be fairly tractable.
Can I directly ask: Is SWP one of the orgs that has been affected by Good Ventures dropping support for some cause areas? (I couldn't parse all the context previously on a quick skim.)
I'm not sure how much they funded you previously, or if this is a concern. No worries if you can't or would prefer not to say :)
- I am directionally sympathetic to the arguments in this post.
- Good Ventures dropping out of some AW focused areas makes me think there might currently be promising gaps to fill (although it sounds like immediate gaps in some shrimp + wild animal orgs might be covered?)
- I'm not marking myself as higher mainly because I don't have good taste on how good the marginal AW focused funding proposals are right now, vs the marginal GH focused ones.
Heart! "It's freakin' awesome!!" really resonates with me here (my initial reaction was "OMG yes").
Also this in general makes me feel relieved and grateful that the ecosystem is robust enough to deal with sudden funding shortfalls like this on a short timeline (although I imagine this was no trivial lift to juggle for everyone involved). This feels like an existence proof / credible test of at least one part of our collective resilience.
🤝🏻 Hope you & others get some time to celebrate this win before you have to dive back into resolving the longer term sustainability issue!
- Background: Good Ventures is requiring Open Philanthropy (OP) to exit the wild animal welfare space.
- Recent development: The Navigation Fund (TNF) plans to fill the gap left by OP, at least through the end of 2026.
This is awesome :) Really glad to hear this news!
Buying the WAW sector & other allies time to deal with the funding gap left by GV seems naively to me like a really good spend. Very glad someone filled it, thank you to those who made it happen and especially TNF / Jed!
Are you willing to draft some rough bullet points (that you urge people to NOT copy and paste) on SB-1047 that might help people complete this exercise faster?
Also, do you have a sense for how much better a slightly longer letter (e.g. a 1 page note) is as compared to just a 1 paragraph email with something like: "As a [location] resident concerned about AI safety, I urge you to sign SB 1047 into law. AI safety is important to me because [1 sentence]."
FWIW, I did just send off an email, but it took me more like ~30 minutes to skim this post and then draft something. I also wasn't sure how important it was to create the PDF — otherwise I would have just sent an email on my phone, which would again have been a bit faster.
I personally am a fan of the "both/and" approach to praise :)