Creating a fund exclusively focused on supporting AI Safety Research
Creating a fund exclusively focused on supporting AI Safety Research
People
Updated 06/10/26By grantmaking.aicreator
Funding Details
- Start Date
- -
- End Date
- -
- Expected Duration
- -
- Funding Raised to Date
- -
- Annual Budget
- -
- Monthly Burn Rate
- -
- Current Runway
- -
- Funding Stage
- -
- Fiscal Sponsor
- -
Project Details
Updated 06/10/26By grantmaking.aiProject Summary
The AI Safety Research Fund is a proposed 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated exclusively to advancing AI safety through targeted, transparent, and independent grantmaking. We have already been accepted for fiscal sponsorship by Anti Entropy, a 501(c)(3), contingent on us raising initial funding.This Manifund project is intended to be a catalyst for securing initial donations so that we can setup operations and get fiscal sponsorship. Our goal is to fix critical gaps in the current funding landscape by fundraising outside of traditional EA and longtermist circles. Our operations will be guided by responsiveness, accessibility to average donors, and a commitment to broadening the AI safety ecosystem.
What are this project's goals? How will you achieve them?
Goals:
- Increase the total amount of funding going to AI safety.
- Streamline the process of applying for and distributing safety-focused grants.
- Provide early-stage support to promising but underfunded or unconventional projects.
- Expand the donor base beyond traditional Effective Altruism circles.
How we'll achieve them:
- Build a fully operational grantmaking nonprofit with fiscal sponsorship for immediate 501(c)(3) status.
- Run regular, predictable grant rounds with transparent criteria and guaranteed decision timelines.
- Offer seed funding and small grants to new organizations and individuals, especially early-stage and experimental projects.
- Engage a wide range of donors through accessible fundraising campaigns, ranging from $10/month contributions to major gifts.
- Operate with full transparency, publishing updates and impact reports for donors and the public.
How will this funding be used?
Initial funding will go to paying a fiscal sponsor fee, setting up operations, and issuing the first grants.
What we will immediately fund
There are many who have participated in upskilling programs, who are ready to contribute to AI Safety, but lack the funds. Some have received grants, but many others have not. With the starting donations, many of these promising new researchers can immediately receive funding. We already have made connections with those in the ecosystem who are ready to recommend highly-skilled researchers. We are ready to begin issuing grants and building a track record. Any donation will make a substantial difference, since every new, highly-skilled researcher might make a substantial difference long term.
Other promising avenues we wish to pursue are new forms of interpretability, such as developmental and representative engineering. Any projects that combine the theoretical perspectives of alignment with the empirical prosaic. Moonshot approaches. Multi-agency. And Existential Resilience. We will continue our agentic search for the most promising avenues for alignment, especially anything neglected, overlooked, or missed in the noise. We will continue to correspond with many in the field, across a wide variety of perspectives, to gain as much insight as possible and improve our theory of change.
Who is on your team? What's your track record on similar projects?
Fund Manager – Jaeson Booker
- Background: Software engineer and AI safety researcher.
- Role: Full-time operator overseeing all aspects of the Fund, including grantmaking, operations, and fundraising.
Fund Advisors
Kabir Kumar
- Founder of AI Plans
Seth Herd
- Independent AI Safety Research
Jobst Heitzig
- Project Lead of SatisfIA
What are the most likely causes and outcomes if this project fails?
Most likely causes of failure:
- Failure to secure initial donor commitments to reach operational sustainability.
- Inability to attract and retain qualified advisors or operations staff.
- Lack of visibility or credibility in the broader AI safety ecosystem.
Most likely outcomes if it fails:
- The AI safety field will continue to suffer from a lack of early-stage and independent funding.
- Promising projects will go unfunded or dissolve prematurely.
- Donors interested solely in AI safety will lack a dedicated giving vehicle, potentially reducing the total funding entering the field.
The Institute for AI Policy and Strategy released a report from AI researchers surveyed, and found the following bottlenecks:
- Resources: While funding for AI Reliability & Safety has increased in recent years, it remains inadequate relative to the scale and urgency of the problem.
- Expertise: The field faces a shortage of researchers with the necessary technical skills.
- Uncertainty: There is considerable uncertainty about which research directions offer the most promise for risk reduction per unit of effort.“Despite widespread awareness of this urgent challenge, significant gaps remain in coordinating and prioritizing technical AI reliability and security.”
** -**Expert Survey: AI Reliability & Security Research Priorities
How much money have you raised in the last 12 months, and from where?
As of now, we are in the pre-seed fundraising phase. Our goal is to secure:
- $25,000 in minimum pledged commitments to initiate operations.
- $100,000 in total pledged support from anchor donors ($10,000–$25,000), founding supporters ($1,000–$5,000), and community members (recurring donations).
We are actively seeking these pledges and anticipate having a committed funding base before launching the first grant round in September 2025.
The Path Forward
We will seek to mitigate potential failure modes, and foresee future bottlenecks before they manifest, using previous organizations as datapoints.
Operational bottlenecks: The AI Safety Research Fund will strive to overcome operational bottlenecks. One is that it will not set hard constraints on how much of the funding is dedicated toward it, and by not having a separate fund for paying staff. Another is to make the fund as modular as possible, with Grant Managers, once we reach a certain scale, being delegated to their own subfields. They would be accountable for the applications for that subfield, issuing their own recommendations for approval, with a projected portion of the funds delegated toward that subfield.Spinoff from fiscal sponsor: As we spinoff from our fiscal sponsor, the Board of Advisors will be transitioned to the Board of Trustees. This way, the Trustees will be individuals who have worked with the fund for 12-24 months, so we will have a good understanding of their commitment and their trustability.Separate fundraising and grant cycles. We will separate our different endeavors to different times, so that they can each get our undivided attention. This begins with a time dedicated to fundraising. Once the fundraising round concludes, it will be followed by a time dedicated toward strategic goals given the amount of funding. Then there will be a grant round based on that strategy, where the focus will be on getting high-value applicants. This might include giving rewards to those who discover promising applicants. And finally a decision round, where we will decide who gets funded.Applications: We want to make the applications as time economic for all parties involved as possible. This starts with a quick grant application. The goal of the first application is to filter-out the easy-to-determine applicants who we would know from little information would not be a priority for funding. This way, we are not wasting their time either. The next application would require more details, and take more time to fill-out, but these would be applicants we would seriously consider funding. After a certain scale for our organization, we will separate this second stage into two options: one for smaller grants, such as those under 10k, which would not need as many details. And one option for larger grants, which would need more scrutiny and more details. It’s not a one-size-fits-all, and we’ll finetune this process as we go along.**Fundraising initiatives**: We plan to try a variety of different fundraising tactics, see which ones bare fruit, and then scale them to larger campaigns. This can range from social media campaigns, grassroots organization, targeting high-income donors, leveraging already existing networks, academic circles, and fundraising events. Another goal is for us to be ready for a potential sudden increase in funding AI Safety projects that we will quickly be able to capitalize on.Fund Management
The AI Safety Research Fund will not operate by the normal “impact assessments” or “cost effectiveness” others have used. The “math” behind these assessments is often meaningless and used more as a post-hoc justification for broader, underlying intuitions.
The fund will instead have a kind of “portfolio” of projects and researchers. We will keep up with our projects and researchers to see how they are progressing, and get them any resources we reasonably can (collaboration, references, further funding, etc.) We see our grants as an investment in future outcomes, and we will work to ensure that investment pans out as best as it can. We will also have a diversified portfolio, with the same mentality of many angel investors: high risk, high reward. We will execute intelligent search for potential “unicorns” in alignment research that have gone unnoticed by others. Our primary goal is to seek out and find such research, or even put out a request for the sort of projects we are interested in funding.
The strength of our impact will not be based on the strength of individual projects, but on the overall strength of the portfolio. Research in AI Safety does not and cannot work in isolation, so it is the strength of the whole that will ultimately matter. And the strength of our portfolio will be assessed by its returns: the amount of research that gets done, the number of other researchers who build on it, the new insights gained or understanding that get unlocked, anything that allows our strategic outlook to the future to be in higher resolution and sharper focus.
The Cost of Inaction
The counterfactual to this project is: nothing happens. This means less funding will be flowing into AI Safety, fewer alignment researchers will receive a salary, fewer new safety orgs will be created, and fewer prospective researchers will be trained and onboarded.Time is not on our side. The safety community needs more scalable and responsive funding infrastructure. We're here to build it.
We recognize this initiative's critical, time-sensitive need. We invite you to join us. Our existence directly translates to increased funding, better compensated researchers, the creation of new safety organizations, and the training of future talent, all vital for a positive AI future.
Let's ensure the future of AI is safe, sane, and human-aligned.
Help us fund it.
Contact: contact@ai-safety-fund.org
Interested in getting involved? Fill out our interest form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSezw-3GFKHNB-1n4j4EBLie2EPt5wFUy68OrgASHM90qMRO5A/viewform
Want to wait until we get 501(c)(3) status to donate? You can still pledge a donation here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSezw-3GFKHNB-1n4j4EBLie2EPt5wFUy68OrgASHM90qMRO5A/viewform
More details about the structure and plans for the fund: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12a9-WzdH_IDmaTYmVtk5n16syraKpLGlMdk9EriEMcY/edit?usp=sharing
Website: https://www.ai-safety-fund.org/
\
Grants Received– no grants recorded
Updated 06/10/26By grantmaking.aiDiscussion
Why not just be Manifund’s regrantor? Everything is already set-up. Manifund was explicitly looking for more re-grantors
@AntonMakiievskyi I'm open to the idea. My current mentality is that Manifund is not very scalable, at least not for the sort of thing I'm trying to do. I don't think they're trying to fundraise from the people I'm looking to fundraise from.
@JaesonB Might be worth applying if you run into challenges. Could be a decent way to test fit/build credibility.
Since I've already communicated my thoughts privately.
- Can you give any example of gaps in the funding ecosystem you are planning to solve that aren't covered by a mix of OP, SFF, LTFF, Jueyan's AISTOF, Manifund and others?
- What are some critical, time-sensitive or otherwise important work that is currently not being funded since kts being neglected by current donors?
- Who are currently donors you are working with that would donate to ai safety but aren't?
1 & 2: The only broad survey from those in the field, as cited in the project summary, lists lack of funds as a critical bottleneck. On top of that, there is a long history of unexpected and sudden drops in funding, severe delays in decision timelines, and opaque decision criteria. I won’t go into all of the ones I know of, but here are some examples: AI Safety Camp struggled to get funding (1), despite many in the community viewing them as highly impactful (2), and almost shut down as a result. Lighthaven, also viewed as highly impactful (3), struggled to get funding for years, despite also being regarded by many as very impactful (3). Most recently, Apart Research who, despite outperforming on their previous grant from LTFF (4), was turned down because LTFF is funding constrained, and OpenPhil did not respond in the expected timeframe (5). Regardless of how you feel about Apart’s impact, the reason they were not funded was not because they were judged to not be impactful, but because of a decrease in funds available. Goodventures has caused OpenPhil not to fund certain impact areas (6), despite some thinking they are critically important (7). LTFF has also been known for being extremely capacity constrained (8). There’s also the problem of just how much of the funds flow from very few sources, resulting in single points of failure, which can result in chaotic outcomes, such as the collapse of FTX Future Fund and the sudden decisions made by Good Ventures (9). It has likely also resulted in the conforming of ideas to suit only the world models of a few, most likely suffocating alternative ones (10). I have spoken to many who have had similar situations, where the problem did not seem to be the lack of a project’s promise or skill of the grantee, but sudden shifts in funding and a lack of clearly-communicated timelines to hear back. I have also spoken with individual researchers who had to leverage their own network and time to get promising research funded From others I have spoken with, this has also resulted in people leaving the AI Safety space altogether and working instead on capabilities research. I think the indirect cost is harder to measure, but probably much greater. Many talented people might care about AI going well, but their threshold for sacrifice might be lower than the one demanded of them currently in the community. They want a reliable community with easy channels to get involved, with dependable funding. I’m not going to pretend I can solve all of these issues, but I think the problem is there and this is a start in a better direction.
3: I think there is too much “whale hunting”. As I said, I think high-leverage donors are useful, and am fine with others continuing to pursue them, but they also carry with them the risks mentioned before. Namely, single points of failure, which results in funding shocks felt around the ecosystem, and conformity to world models held by the donors. I’m aiming more for sub-billionaires. I think there’s potential for wealthy individuals who are not very connected to the AI Safety space, but who are already concerned, and also grassroots campaigns for a more dispersed fundraising approach. I think the latter could be very important in the coming years, if AI continues to improve and gain more attention. By 2027, the funding landscape could scarcely resemble the current one, and I think setting-up funds now ready to capitalize on that will be important. I think what projects need to be funded, and the number of people capable of executing those projects, might also change. Even if you think most useful projects are being funded today doesn’t mean there won’t be a much higher range of useful projects tomorrow.
1: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EAZjXKNN2vgoJGF9Y/this-might-be-the-last-ai-safety-camp
2: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-big-nonprofits-post?open=false#%C2%A7ai-safety-camp
3: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5n2ZQcbc7r4R8mvqc/the-lightcone-is-nothing-without-its-people
6: https://www.goodventures.org/blog/an-update-from-good-ventures/
7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD37AKRx2fg&t=4965s
9: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EYCMHa6_7Mudb4s1MDvppGMY5BmHEVvryGw9cX_dlQ8/edit?tab=t.0
10: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FdHRkGziQviJ3t8rQ/discussion-about-ais-funding-fb-transcript
Regarding Jueyan's AISTOF, I'm not as familiar with it, so I can't speak on how effective it is, or what gaps it may be filling. Of current funds, I'm currently most optimistic about Longview.
Hi, kindly support my projects: 1) Improving Welfare Standards of Chickens in Live Bird Markets, Nigeria. 2) Low-Cost Cat Care Days, Bauchi. Your donation means a lot!
I'd be curious to hear more on why you think donors should give money to you rather than directly to AI safety organisations, or to other regranters like the Long-Term Future Fund. For example, do you have much of a prior grant-making track record or otherwise evidence of better decision-making than donors might have? Or is there a specific market inefficiency other funders are neglecting that you have a plan to solve?
@NeelNanda Hi, I think it shouldn't be thought of as predicting our fund will have better decision-making (although there are other, higher-profile grant advisors who are interested in getting involved should we get more funding). I think it's more of betting that we can 10x the amount donated now, by obtaining fiscal sponsorship and the operational capacity to start the fund, and then start fundraising outside of normal EA circles. I don't think LTFF can do this, since they're focused on longtermism (which doesn't interest most people), and they also appear to already be capacity-constrained. You cannot easily donate directly to organizations like OpenPhil. I think too many EAs are focused on the orchard they spent years cultivating, and have forsaken any real attempts to go into the forest to forage. My guestimation is there is 10x more funding potential from people who are growing in concern about AI, but lack the knowledge or any easy channel for action. I think it is 10x right now. If AI continues to progress, which I expect it will, this could easily grow to 100x or even 1000x. I don't think it's crazy to think, if setup early, there could be billions flowing into AI Safety in 2027. But to get there, things need to be setup first, and early. This means getting 501(c)(3) status and building an initial track record, so that we can build trust with people outside and they can know that they're money will be well spent.
@JaesonB, what about the AI Risk Mitigation Fund? They're not focused exclusively on longtermism and have the same grantmakers as the LTFF.
@RyanKidd To my knowledge, they're still setting up or determining their next steps for the fund. Hopefully, it goes well, but I fear similar capacity constraints to LTFF.
@JaesonB, I also fear those capacity constraints. I'm curious why you think the solution is a separate fund, rather than alleviating the capacity constraints of an already-proven fund? Additionally, why wouldn't exactly the same constraints (e.g., money, competent grantmakers) bottleneck your fund?
I think there's a gap for an organization like The Life You Can Save for AI safety, which would encourage donations and pledges to top charities, but I don't really see how your proposed fund is a better alternative to scaling the AI Risk Mitigation Fund or Manifund. If the argument is "we bring in additional donors because of our non-longtermist affiliation", the same could be said for ARM and Manifund. If the argument is "we add additional grantmaker capacity" I would counter "why can't these same grantmakers join ARM or just use Manifund?" (Possible answer: maybe ARM's bar is too high and Manifund isn't an attractive target for donations.) Basically, I think we do need more funders in the medium-long term, but I think the experience and reputation of the ARM grantmakers is much higher than your proposed grantmakers, on average, and Manifund already exists as a short-term regranting solution that I would rather grow. I don't want this project to not happen at all, to be clear, but I would rather it be rescoped as something closer to TLYCS, as there is a much larger gap here than for another funder constrained by the same things as existing funders, albeit less experienced.
@JaesonB, if I was in your shoes, I would prioritize these things in order:
@RyanKidd I've actually already reached out to ARM and they were encouraging of the idea of creating new funds for AI Safety, separate from ARM. I had also mentioned a collaboration of some kind, but they said they are focused on figuring out the strategy for the fund in the coming months, and to reach out again at that point.
@RyanKidd I would be interested in regranting for Manifund, but do fear that it might steer me toward looking good in the eyes of the other regranters, and away from funding what might actually be most needed. I am open to it, though.
@JaesonB Thank you for these great responses!