Scott Alexander defends effective altruism by highlighting its major accomplishments and arguing that its occasional missteps are outweighed by its positive impact on the world. Longer summary

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism (EA) against recent criticisms, highlighting its accomplishments in global health, animal welfare, AI safety, and other areas. He argues that EA has saved around 200,000 lives, equivalent to ending gun violence, curing AIDS, and preventing a 9/11-scale attack in the US. Scott contends that EA's achievements are often overlooked because they focus on less publicized causes, and that the movement's occasional missteps are minor compared to its positive impact. He emphasizes that EA is a coalition of people who care about logically analyzing important causes, whether broadly popular or not, and encourages readers to investigate and support the most beneficial causes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander creates an interactive geographic-style map visualizing the landscape of effective altruism, including cause areas, organizations, and key individuals. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a visual map of the effective altruism (EA) movement, inspired by his previous map of the rationalist diaspora. The map is organized as a geographical representation where continents represent cause areas, cities represent charities or organizations, and mountains represent influential individuals within the EA community. The interactive map includes clickable links with explanatory title-text for various elements. Scott acknowledges AG's assistance in setting up the imagemap functionality. 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