Coefficient Giving (where I work as a grantmaker) recently launched Project Tailwind, a call for founders of AI safety orgs[1]. Many of the best existing AI safety orgs were started by LessWrong readers, and I expect some of the best orgs we fund through Tailwind will be too.
The website includes descriptions of 36 potential orgs that various CG grantmakers would like to fund, which I’ve pasted in a list below. But these are just examples – you can apply for funding to start[2] any org that has a good shot at reducing catastrophic risk from AI. The strategic situation has been changing pretty fast, so there’s probably plenty of great org ideas that aren’t on this list.
CG now moves pretty fast and goes pretty big compared to historical baselines. For example, in June my team got approval for up to $160m to found Resolution in about 6 weeks. And in August we got a $10m grant to Jacob Tsimerman approved 12 days after he first reached out to us. The range of AI safety work that CG is willing to fund is pretty broad these days, too.
So funding isn’t really a bottleneck. But talent is! So if you think one of these orgs is a promising way to reduce x-risk, maybe you should be the person to make it happen. And if you think they’re all rubbish ideas, maybe you should apply with a better one. And if you don’t want to start an org, maybe you should post your better idea in the comments for someone else to use. It's also valuable to post critiques of these ideas.
We’re using a loose framework of pre-seed grants of $200k–$2m, seed grants of $2m–$20m, and bigger bets of $20m–$200m or even more. I expect that we’ll often give out pre-seed grants to promising people with good ideas, even when their plans are not particularly fleshed out and they expect to pivot around a lot. We also fund generous compute budgets and competitive salaries.
The easiest way to apply for funding is to fill out this quick expression-of-interest form. If your EOI sounds promising we’ll invite you to submit a full proposal.
Independent assessment
Research institutions
Evidence generation
AI security & verification
Public goods
Talent acceleration
Convenings
Sorry for the slow reply, I was on my honeymoon!
I can't speak for CG as an institution, but I am personally in favour of slowing down or pausing AI. For me, the appeal of lots of the example projects on listed on the tailwind website is that they could make useful co-ordination on AI more likely, either by helping to generate or document evidence about AI risk, or directly building capacity to implement agreements.