The AI Safety Initiative Groningen has been awarded funding from Open Philanthropy. Open Philanthropy is a grantmaking organization which aims to use its resources to help others as much as it can. Their support enables us to pursue our mission of ensuring AI development aligns with safe and ethical standards. Open Philanthropy evaluates their own performance every year, their report for 2022 can be found here; it gives a nice insight into their priorities and way of operating.

We received our funding from Open Philanthropy after going through a written application and online interview process. Open Philanthropy has stated that the purpose of the grant “...is to provide funding for individuals who want to direct or support university student groups focused on topics relevant to improving the long-term future… or specific cause areas [such as AI Safety]”. Examples of permitted activities include “organizing, publicizing, and providing material for reading and discussion groups, career advising workshops, research activities, and retreats, talks and events.” The only requirement for us in receiving this grant is that we “agree to submit a written report to Open Philanthropy within 30 days of the Termination Date [of the grant]. The report must be at least two paragraphs and must describe in reasonable detail what activities [we] conducted with the support of these grant funds.” Concretely, there are absolutely no conditions whatsoever of the grant that compromise our independence or objectivity in any of our operations. We are very fortunate to be able to receive this grant while maintaining a complete unencumbered focus on the ethical and safe development of AI.

We are well aware that political and commercial influences from, for example, Big Tech, are very sensitive in academia. Therefore we make sure to thoroughly investigate what kinds of influences our sources of funding might be subject to, and/or impose themselves.

We have noted below important details to be aware of regarding Open Philanthropy, Big Tech, and power concentration that we have encountered so far, so that others may also investigate further themselves. Taking into consideration all the points below, and especially considering that our grant is delivered without any “strings” attached, we currently find it appropriate and beneficial for us to receive funding from Open Philanthropy. If you have any thoughts or arguments you feel may give reason for us to think otherwise, or have questions, please contact us at info@aisig.org.

Important points:

History of Open Philanthropy:

Open Philanthropy’s main funders are Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, and his wife, Cari Tuna. Dustin Moskovitz left Facebook in 2008 - some reports claim that most of his net worth lies in his estimated 2% stake there, while others dispute this claim. After leaving Facebook in 2008, Moskovitz co-founded Asana, a workflow software company, which is now valued at around 4.4 billion USD.

Tuna and Moskovitz were in their mid-20s in 2010 when they became the youngest couple ever to sign on to the Giving Pledge, the campaign started by Bill Gates and Warren E. Buffett to encourage the world’s billionaires to commit to giving away most of their wealth. They went on to be involved in the founding of Open Philanthropy.

Holden Karnofsky and his role as CEO:

For the majority of its operation, the CEO of Open Philanthropy has been Holden Karnofsky, whom Moskovitz and Tuna originally met through a mutual friend. Four years prior to the founding of Open Philanthropy, Holden Karnofsky co-founded GiveWell. GiveWell is a charity evaluator that searches for interventions that save or improve lives the most per dollar.

While running Open Philanthropy, Karnofsky went on to write extensively about his concerns of potential risks from advanced AI systems, speaking both on behalf of Open Philanthropy [1,2] and on his personal blog [3,4,5,6]. Karnofsky has clearly outlined in his writing that, over time, his thinking regarding the best place to focus his philanthropic efforts moved towards preparing for the potential harms of speculative future technologies: ““The reason I currently spend so much time planning around speculative future technologies (instead of working on evidence-backed, cost-effective ways of helping low-income people today—which I did for much of my career, and still think is one of the best things to work on) is that I think the stakes are just that high.” This reasoning is largely based on the concept of hits-based giving which Open Philanthropy embraces: “Our overarching goal is to do as much good as we can, and as part of that, we’re open to supporting work that has a high risk of failing to accomplish its goals. We’re even open to supporting work that is more than 90% likely to fail, as long as the overall expected value is high enough.”

Open Philanthropy’s influence, and their strong focus on future harms:

With regard to the philanthropic work they do in connection to AI, it is clear that Open Philanthropy prioritizes work addressing harms from the most advanced systems (in many cases systems which do not yet exist). Furthermore, some worry that Open Philanthropy is using its significant financial resources to skew the global policy and research landscape in this direction too. Open Philanthropy’s response to these claims can be found here (including this) - we find it appropriate and reassuring, but always encourage you to look into these topics further yourself. In any case, fortunately, although Open Philanthropy follows this prioritisation, it does not mean we are beholden to the same (please visit the “Conditions/Expectations Tied to Funding” point on this same page to understand this better). We, as AISIG, conduct ongoing investigation and discussion to determine our mitigation priorities in relation to harms from AI. For the time being, global catastrophic risks from AI are a key priority for us and therefore Open Philanthropy is inclined to support us financially.

Insider relationships/networks relating to Open Philanthropy:

There are many ties between people at Open Philanthropy and people involved with frontier AI labs that are important to be aware of. For us, the most fitting explanation of these ties is simply that people with similar values, interests, and careers end up being in contact and frequently enter personal relationships, however, ultimately it is always possible that malevolent strategic actions (such as altering policies in the US so that one’s company gains more profits/power) could arise from these kinds of relationships, and therefore it is important to keep track of them. Some key ties to be aware of are listed as follows.

Open Philanthropy previously gave a grant to OpenAI and received a seat on the board as a result. In short, the justification given for this was that “We believe that close involvement with such an organization is likely one of the most effective avenues available to us for advancing our goal of increasing the amount of work done on reducing potential risks from advanced AI, both within the organization and outside it”.

Holden Karnofsky’s wife is Daniela Amodei, an ex-employee of OpenAI who went on to found the major frontier AI lab Anthropic together with her brother, Dario Amodei (who was also an ex-housemate of both Holden and Daniela). Holden Karnofsky has repeatedly publicly disclosed this relationship and made clear that Daniela Amodei has significant equity in both Anthropic and OpenAI, with a large portion of it being pledged for donation.

Dustin Moskovitz, the primary funder of Open Philanthropy, has invested in Anthropic. Moskovitz has made clear that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman previously invested in Moskovitz’ Asana, and both Altman and Moskovitz invested in the same nuclear fusion startup.

Summary:

Our understanding from our investigation thus far is that, with their work, Open Philanthropy greatly prioritises safeguarding against global catastrophic risks from advanced AI systems and gives less support to efforts to address existing ethical harms from AI. Fortunately, however, as can be seen in the details of our funding agreement with them, we are not in any way forced to have exactly the same priorities as them. There are some additional observations that could be cause for concern, such as the level of influence Open Philanthropy is currently exerting over the AI policy landscape or the personal relationships that can be found between some people at Open Philanthropy and people at frontier AI labs, however, these observations also have potentially benign explanations which we are currently most convinced by.

To ensure objectivity in all our endeavors, we actively engage with a wide array of academic stakeholders, including professors, university staff, and students, fostering regular consultations and open dialogues. This approach allows us to critically assess our strategies, keeping them aligned with diverse academic standards. Additionally, we prioritize interactions with critics/skeptics, embracing their insights as a means to challenge our assumptions and enhance the overall balance of our offerings. By maintaining this inclusive and transparent approach, we aim to address potential biases and uphold the integrity of our support to the research community and beyond. If you have any critiques or questions, please feel free to contact us at info@aisig.org

Our initiative operates independently, without an external advisory body, ensuring our freedom of expression in exploring diverse ideas. We place a strong emphasis on the quality of arguments, with critical thinking and rigorous debate at the heart of our work. This independence enables us to openly consider a broad spectrum of viewpoints, including those that challenge conventional thinking in the field. Our approach allows us to engage with a variety of perspectives, striving to contribute constructively to the ongoing discourse on AI safety.

At AISIG, we are deeply engaged in understanding and addressing the complexities and challenges of artificial intelligence, both current and future.

Harms such as misinformation and discrimination from algorithms are already evident today; other harms show signs of emerging. We understand the importance of addressing both ongoing and potential future harms. This is not an either/or scenario. Present and emerging risks often share similar mechanisms, patterns, and solutions. Our investment in robust governance frameworks and AI safety is driven by this understanding, aiming to create meaningful impacts across various aspects of AI development and usage.

Inclusivity remains a core principle in our approach. AI's impacts are wide-ranging, touching diverse groups in different ways. Hence, we actively engage with a spectrum of perspectives and solutions, from ensuring fairness and mitigating bias to addressing speculative existential risks. Our commitment is to recognize and respond to all concerns, whether immediate or speculative, with equal dedication and seriousness