Hide table of contents

I made the following infographic adapting the Introduction to Effective Altruism post. The goal I set for myself was to make the post more accessible and easier to digest to broaden its potential audience, and to make the ideas more memorable through graphics and data visualizations. 

You can also view it in high-resolution here or get a pdf here.

More info on the thought and creative process below!

Why did I make this?

I'm a graphic designer with a background in scientific and technical illustration, specializing in making complex concepts more accessible. I am now trying to pivot my career towards communicating higher-impact ideas, and I wanted to create something that could show how I can apply my skills to EA-related topics. The Intro to EA post seemed like an excellent place to start, because it condenses a lot of general information about EA and also includes a few statistics that I could readily visualize.

Process and strategy

The idea

I set myself a brief to make the post more accessible and appealing to a broader audience, specifically people who are not used to reading long-form content on rather technical subjects. This should also make it easier to share with someone who is not yet into EA but could be interested. Finally, I wanted to stay faithful to the content and structure of the original post, since you can clearly see that a lot of thought went into crafting the narrative in order to provide an accurate introductory picture of EA.

My approach

My goal was to make the ideas presented in the post more memorable and easier to grasp by combining visuals with minimal text, since we know that combining text and (relevant) graphics improves comprehension, retention, and engagement. So I basically tried to visualize as much of the post as I could, and to reduce the text to what was strictly necessary to convey the key messages.

For the introductory section, I focused on showing the dual aspect of EA as both a research field and a community, immediately answering the question in the title "What is effective altruism?". I also introduced the EA logo in large size to immediately give viewers a strong visual anchor to associate with EA.

The examples section was the one I spent the most time on. I decided, for each cause area, to write a short introduction on why the problem is important, accompanied by two data visualizations to "show, not tell" (for more details about the data visualizations, see the section below). I also included a timeline with examples of what has been done, using diamonds for events with a specific date and gradients for ongoing efforts - I avoided adding more icons to prevent visually cluttering this section.

For the values section, I chose to represent the four values with icons on a compass, each accompanied by a short explanation. The central element of the compass, often associated with moral values, should help viewers remember that the community is united by a set of values.

For the section on taking action, I visualized the different possibilities as branching paths a person can take. Once again, this depiction of paths should help reinforce that there are different types of action one can take, and EA is not, e.g., just about donations.

The final call-to-action section could actually be adapted depending on the context in which the infographic is shown. For this project, I went for a link to the original post and two broad links to learn more about EA.

Time spent

In total, it took me 17 hours to complete this infographic, from research to planning to final execution.

Design choices

Overall style

For colors and typography, I followed quite closely the Effective Altruism Style Guide to help build a sense of trust and brand consistency, especially since this is supposed to be an introduction to the movement and first impressions matter.

I also kept the visual style flat and minimal, again to communicate a sense of trust and the importance of the topic.

Data visualizations

For the data visualizations that were already present in the original post, I wanted to make them look even more impactful and compelling. While bar charts are certainly more effective at showing the scope of the data than just presenting numbers in tables, I find that visualizations that include pictograms can show scope differences even more effectively. For example, you can immediately see that there are about 40 deaths from COVID for each death from terrorism, and seeing 180 stick figures can make you more easily imagine the actual people that could be saved with $1M.

I also wanted to add one data visualization to the AI alignment section and two to the decision-making section for better visual consistency with the other sections. 

  • For AI alignment, I adapted the "Computation used to train AI models with bioanchors" visualization by Taylor Jones I saw in this report: I downloaded the updated dataset from Our World In Data and stripped down some details, while I chose to show all models from 2010 to the end of 2024. I included this visualization to show the speed of progress in AI capabilities.
  • The decision-making section was the trickiest, because decision-making is a more abstract concept and thus harder to visualize. First, I tried to estimate how many people the average US politician can influence. This should be a decent estimate,[1] but I'd be happy to hear about more accurate ones. Then I decided to present a split timeline with examples of good and bad decision-making throughout history. I'm a little concerned that the visual representation might be interpreted as all of those decisions coming from just one person, although it should be fairly obvious this can't be the case if one reads the text. I'm also aware that classifying events as either "good" or "bad" is a little too simplistic, but this was the best I could come up with. If you have better ideas, I'd be happy to hear them!

In general, I aimed to keep the data visualizations as simple as I could, e.g. by removing unit scales from plot axes that are not really necessary to grasp the relation between different areas of the graph, while avoiding compromising understandability.

Feedback welcome!

I would love to hear your thoughts on my work! 

Please let me know if you have any ideas for improvements or if you think anything is problematic.

It would also be helpful to know you think any specific parts of my approach are particularly effective (or ineffective) for sharing this kind of EA-related information.

Going forward

As part of  my effort to build a more impactful career using my design skills, I'm looking to create more infographics, data visualizations, diagrams, illustrations, etc. on EA-related topics to show how graphic design can benefit the movement. If you have any specific post, report, concept, etc. you would like to see me work on, I would be happy to hear about it. Bonus points if it's in AI safety, but I'm really open to anything at the moment.

  1. ^

    I looked up the number of US politicians of various ranks from this website. Then, my reasoning was the following: there is one president, who can influence the entire US population; there are 100 senators, so each senator can influence, on average, 1/100 of the entire US population; and so on, for each of the categories. My estimate is the weighted average of the influence of the different categories, with weights corresponding to the number of politicians in each category. Please note that I'm not from the US, so I might have missed some nuances that could invalidate the reasoning; if so, please let me know!

Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I love seeing this kind of initiative, and it is great that the skills you have allow you to contribute in such a clear way.

Thank you Joseph, really appreciate it!

Lovely infographic :) you do have the Good Decision Making - Bad Decision Making labels on the wrong side, for the "Improve Decision-making" box. At least, I hope they're the wrong sides, lol.

Thank you! Thanks for pointing out that mistake as well, I've just fixed it :)

First, nice infographic!

Second, I think there's a slight mistake here, where good decision-making and poor decision-making are flipped here, unless I'm missing something:

Thanks a lot! 

And thank you for catching that, good and poor decision-making were indeed flipped. I've just updated the post and the Drive files with the correct version :)

I really like the variety of cause areas you chose. Simple, appealing descriptions that draw in someone who hasn't encountered EA before. 17 hours is really short for such quality information!

Thank you so  much! I didn't do most of the research myself, though - I drew upon the existing intro post for most of the content and structure as well.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by