Fwiw, hereās my own personal list of pros and cons of RP relative to other options I could imagine myself pursuing (e.g., working at FHI [full-time and for longer than I currently plan to], CEA, EA Funds, Founders Pledge, think tanks, or academia).
Though note that this is anchored by Linchās list, I didnāt spend very long thinking about it, and pros and cons will differ between people. Also, many of these pros and cons also apply to some of my other options.
Pros
Good chance of playing an important role in a team that has a plausible chance of scaling a fair bit per year for several years, while maintaining similar quality and impact per person, and while making good use of people with less experience in research or in EA
Impactful decision-relevant research
Research on very interesting questions
Substantial degree of autonomy, both within my main work (e.g., I can basically decide for myself that I should drop some post Iād been planning to write and write a different post instead) and between my main work and ātangentsā (e.g., I can decide to spend some time creating and delivering a workshop to some EA research training program)
That autonomy is paired with good feedback, including critical feedback where warranted
Iād feel more existential dread about my impact etc., plus actually just have less impact, if just given autonomy without much guidance and feedback.
Sometimes I get really excited about things that I shouldnāt be that excited about, miss other great ideas, or could take a 20% better angle on something.
My manager and others at RP help me correct for these things
Good coworkers, Slack workspace, mentorship, and āstructuresā (e.g., project plan templates)
I like writing and publishing/āsharing things Iāve written, and this job lets me do lots of that (in particular, more than grantmaking does)
More intellectually stimulating and ādeepā feeling than some parts of grantmaking
No requirement to publish papers etc.
Pretty EA-ish, informal, harmless-weirdness-accepting work culture
Extremely flexible schedule (e.g., can easily have my āweekendā on whatever days my partner has off work, which are often weekdays, then work on the weekend)
Fully remote (makes it easy for me to join my partner on trips back to Australia and work while there [while she performs at festivals, such that we wouldnāt be spending the whole time together anyway])
Good pay (well above FHI, and roughly on par with my other likely options)
Cons
Many of the other places I could potentially work have their own versions of the above pros, and I donāt get to get those at Rethink
Small team so far, so to date Iāve often not had someone at the org who has expertise in issues Iām working on (particularly for nuclear risk)
A notable exception is forecasting, where Iāve regularly been able to quickly get great input from Rethink people
In any case, Iām able to get good āgeneralistā input from Rethink people and to build lots of connections beyond Rethink to get their input
No senior longtermist researchers
Decent chance me doing grantmaking would be more directly impactful in the near term than my Rethink work
But hard to say, and I think this is outweighed by the fact Iām probably best off aiming for research management long-term
Grantmaking involves a more diverse and random array of tasks and faster feedback loops, plus more of a feeling of direct and visible impact, plus the impact often involves identifiable humans (the grantees) being happy and helped and grateful. That can all be fun and mildly addictive
Fully remote
Iām pretty ok with this, but there are perks to e.g. being at Trajan House (where FHI and many other EA orgs are located)
OTOH, Iām currently often working at Trajan House anyway, and expect to often do so next year anyway
Fwiw, hereās my own personal list of pros and cons of RP relative to other options I could imagine myself pursuing (e.g., working at FHI [full-time and for longer than I currently plan to], CEA, EA Funds, Founders Pledge, think tanks, or academia).
Though note that this is anchored by Linchās list, I didnāt spend very long thinking about it, and pros and cons will differ between people. Also, many of these pros and cons also apply to some of my other options.
Pros
Good chance of playing an important role in a team that has a plausible chance of scaling a fair bit per year for several years, while maintaining similar quality and impact per person, and while making good use of people with less experience in research or in EA
Impactful decision-relevant research
Research on very interesting questions
Substantial degree of autonomy, both within my main work (e.g., I can basically decide for myself that I should drop some post Iād been planning to write and write a different post instead) and between my main work and ātangentsā (e.g., I can decide to spend some time creating and delivering a workshop to some EA research training program)
That autonomy is paired with good feedback, including critical feedback where warranted
Iād feel more existential dread about my impact etc., plus actually just have less impact, if just given autonomy without much guidance and feedback.
Sometimes I get really excited about things that I shouldnāt be that excited about, miss other great ideas, or could take a 20% better angle on something.
My manager and others at RP help me correct for these things
Good coworkers, Slack workspace, mentorship, and āstructuresā (e.g., project plan templates)
I like writing and publishing/āsharing things Iāve written, and this job lets me do lots of that (in particular, more than grantmaking does)
More intellectually stimulating and ādeepā feeling than some parts of grantmaking
No requirement to publish papers etc.
Pretty EA-ish, informal, harmless-weirdness-accepting work culture
Extremely flexible schedule (e.g., can easily have my āweekendā on whatever days my partner has off work, which are often weekdays, then work on the weekend)
Fully remote (makes it easy for me to join my partner on trips back to Australia and work while there [while she performs at festivals, such that we wouldnāt be spending the whole time together anyway])
Good pay (well above FHI, and roughly on par with my other likely options)
Cons
Many of the other places I could potentially work have their own versions of the above pros, and I donāt get to get those at Rethink
Small team so far, so to date Iāve often not had someone at the org who has expertise in issues Iām working on (particularly for nuclear risk)
A notable exception is forecasting, where Iāve regularly been able to quickly get great input from Rethink people
In any case, Iām able to get good āgeneralistā input from Rethink people and to build lots of connections beyond Rethink to get their input
No senior longtermist researchers
Decent chance me doing grantmaking would be more directly impactful in the near term than my Rethink work
But hard to say, and I think this is outweighed by the fact Iām probably best off aiming for research management long-term
Grantmaking involves a more diverse and random array of tasks and faster feedback loops, plus more of a feeling of direct and visible impact, plus the impact often involves identifiable humans (the grantees) being happy and helped and grateful. That can all be fun and mildly addictive
Fully remote
Iām pretty ok with this, but there are perks to e.g. being at Trajan House (where FHI and many other EA orgs are located)
OTOH, Iām currently often working at Trajan House anyway, and expect to often do so next year anyway