This is a special post for quick takes by escapealert. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since:

I think suicide prevention might be an underrated cause (need to firmly fact check before my confidence in this is high)
(1) if you delay someone from commiting suicide for just 30 minutes they will almost always change their mind
(2) suicidal people usually spend years inbetween attempts
(3) after someone "fails" a suicide attempt via changing their mind they usually feel a lot better emotionally (excluding failed attempts, only failure via changing your mind)
 

a charity in the UK places 1 hour of phone time is £44, if we assume 10% of people who call the suicide hotline are both (a) going to commit suicide (b) do not because of that call (which would take around 30 minutes) we can assume every 5 hours results in one suicidal person not killing themselves and feeling relief for either months or years - this would put the price of possibly stopping someone from killing themselves at £220 (though it doesn't mean you would save an entire lifespan) suicide is also somewhat unique in that not only does it lead to mourning a loved one but often leads to self blame and all types of emotional problems in the loved ones.

Hey! You might be interested in this forum post on suicide hotlines from a while back. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Xh5oyGkngGjCmNhcP/how-impactful-is-being-a-suicide-hotline-volunteer

Unfortunately, I think the comments in the post (including one from a former volunteer) make a really compelling case that it takes a lot more than 5 hours to prevent a suicide. I think it takes at least hundreds and probably thousands of hours of calls.

You might be surprised to learn that CEAs of mental health interventions in the EA space (example) don’t count the value of preventing suicide and self-harm. But on a DALY basis, self-harm and suicide have roughly the same burden in total as depression as a whole, precisely because they’re so much worse (this is to say nothing of effects on income).

I think that mental health interventions, and especially direct suicide counselling, might be really underrated, simply because the research hasn’t been done in a lot of depth (that I’m aware of). Part of this is because it’s quite hard to accurately quantify the effects of interventions on long-term suicide rates (you need many years, and access to death records). However, there are a few good studies that I think might point to ways this could at least be estimated, and then we can agree on an appropriate evidence discount.

The theory of change gets quite convoluted. For example, people may report feeling suicidal or having suicidal thoughts, but this may have no real correlation with their attempts. Or we may find that people who report feeling less suicidal commit suicide less often, but it may not be true that reducing their feelings of suicidality actually has any effect on their long-term attempt rate.

Here’s a good paper looking at 84,000 people’s PHQ-9 scores and follow-ups with suicidality. Unfortunately, the evidence isn’t causal, but this study looks at suicide prevention RCTs and finds that, at least, depression interventions reduce ideation, but not suicidality. I’ll be doing a bit more research in this area because I think it’s quite promising!

Not sure what the right numbers are but I really like the back-of-the-envelope approach you're taking here. It's simple and concrete enough that it's probably going to bounce around in my head for a while

I think it's possibly donating food directly to homeless people might be a viable way to save a life (I've not done any fact checking or math so keep that in mind) I was recently speaking to a homeless person and the topic of starvation came up and he alleged that "homeless people don't die from starvation but a lack of food kills them" basically saying that secondary effects lead to the death such as using more drugs when food is scare, likely having bad immune system due to low quality food/not enough calories - basically not enough food doesn't kill them but it starts a downward spiral that does - I'm not saying this is a perfect cause but given how much of a bias people have to seeing the people they help and given that most people are becoming cashless i.e homeless people have less money, buying homeless people a bit of food as a habit when you see them might lead to a (higher than expected) number of lives saved in a way most people could probably be convinced of (outside of EA spaces even convincing someone to give is difficult) it also bypasses the "homeless people will just spend it on drugs" issue people often cite as why they don't give money to the homeless 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is Part 1 of a multi-part series, shared as part of Career Conversations Week. The views expressed here are my own and don't reflect those of my employer. TL;DR: Building an EA-aligned career starting from an LMIC comes with specific challenges that shaped how I think about career planning, especially around constraints: * Everyone has their own "passport"—some structural limitation that affects their career more than their abilities. The key is recognizing these constraints exist for everyone, just in different forms. Reframing these from "unfair barriers" to "data about my specific career path" has helped me a lot. * When pursuing an ideal career path, it's easy to fixate on what should be possible rather than what actually is. But those idealized paths often require circumstances you don't have—whether personal (e.g., visa status, financial safety net) or external (e.g., your dream org hiring, or a stable funding landscape). It might be helpful to view the paths that work within your actual constraints as your only real options, at least for now. * Adversity Quotient matters. When you're working on problems that may take years to show real progress, the ability to stick around when the work is tedious becomes a comparative advantage. Introduction Hi, I'm Rika. I was born and raised in the Philippines and now work on hiring and recruiting at the Centre for Effective Altruism in the UK. This post might be helpful for anyone navigating the gap between ambition and constraint—whether facing visa barriers, repeated setbacks, or a lack of role models from similar backgrounds. Hearing stories from people facing similar constraints helped me feel less alone during difficult times. I hope this does the same for someone else, and that you'll find lessons relevant to your own situation. It's also for those curious about EA career paths from low- and middle-income countries—stories that I feel are rarely shared. I can only speak to my own experience, but I hop
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
And other ways to make event content more valuable.   I organise and attend a lot of conferences, so the below is correct and need not be caveated based on my experience, but I could be missing some angles here. Also on my substack. When you imagine a session at an event going wrong, you’re probably thinking of the hapless, unlucky speaker. Maybe their slides broke, they forgot their lines, or they tripped on a cable and took the whole stage backdrop down. This happens sometimes, but event organizers usually remember to invest the effort required to prevent this from happening (e.g., checking that the slides work, not leaving cables lying on the stage). But there’s another big way that sessions go wrong that is sorely neglected: wasting everyone’s time, often without people noticing. Let’s give talks a break. They often suck, but event organizers are mostly doing the right things to make them not suck. I’m going to pick on two event formats that (often) suck, why they suck, and how to run more useful content instead. Panels Panels. (very often). suck. Reid Hoffman (and others) have already explained why, but this message has not yet reached a wide enough audience: Because panelists know they'll only have limited time to speak, they tend to focus on clear and simple messages that will resonate with the broadest number of people. The result is that you get one person giving you an overly simplistic take on the subject at hand. And then the process repeats itself multiple times! Instead of going deeper or providing more nuance, the panel format ensures shallowness. Even worse, this shallow discourse manifests as polite groupthink. After all, panelists attend conferences for the same reasons that attendees do – they want to make connections and build relationships. So panels end up heavy on positivity and agreement, and light on the sort of discourse which, through contrasting opinions and debate, could potentially be more illuminating. The worst form of shal