Scott Alexander offers a guide for lazy people to donate to effective charities, ranging from easy options like EA Funds to more specific recommendations in various cause areas. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides a guide for people who want to donate to effective charities but are very lazy. He suggests donating to EA Funds as the easiest option, which allows experts to allocate funds to the best charities. For those with slightly more energy, he recommends checking charity-evaluating organizations like GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators, and others. He also mentions specific charities in areas like AI safety, climate change, and election science. For the truly skeptical, he suggests GiveDirectly, which gives money directly to poor people in Africa. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines bail reform as a potential solution to high incarceration rates in the US, discussing its impacts, alternatives, and the effectiveness of bail-paying charities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the issue of high incarceration rates in the US and focuses on bail reform as a potential solution. He explains how the current bail system disproportionately affects poor defendants, leading to longer sentences and more convictions. The post examines alternatives like Washington DC's system without monetary bail and the effectiveness of charities that pay bail for defendants. Alexander compares the cost-effectiveness of bail reform charities to other efficient charities and suggests both short-term (supporting bail-paying charities) and long-term (systemic criminal justice reform) solutions. He concludes that while bail reform may not be the most important change needed in the US criminal justice system, it could be one of the easiest to implement. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Dylan Matthews' argument against prioritizing existential risk reduction, arguing that Matthews misuses probabilities and that his logic could also undermine other effective altruist causes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Dylan Matthews' argument against prioritizing existential risk reduction in effective altruism. Matthews claims that the probabilities used in x-risk arguments are made up and could be as low as 10^-66. Scott argues that such extremely low probabilities are unrealistic and that Matthews is misusing numbers. He explains that even with rough estimates, the case for prioritizing x-risk remains strong. Scott also points out that similar arguments could be used against other causes Matthews supports, like animal welfare. He concludes by advocating for a big tent approach in effective altruism that respects different cause prioritizations, including x-risk, while acknowledging that x-risk might not be the best public face for the movement. Shorter summary