Based on what I’ve written here, my verdict is that AI safety seems more funding constrained for small projects and individuals than it is for organizations for the following reasons: - The funds that fund smaller projects such as LTFF tend to have less money than other funds such as Open Phil which seems to be more focused on making larger grants to organizations (Open Phil spends 14x more per year on AI safety). - Funding could be constrained by the throughput of grant-makers (the number of grants they can make per year). This seems to put funds like LTFF at a disadvantage since they tend to make a larger number of smaller grants so they are more constrained by throughput than the total amount of money available. Low throughput incentivizes making a small number of large grants which favors large existing organizations over smaller projects or individuals. - Individuals or small projects tend to be less well-known than organizations so grants for them can be harder to evaluate or might be more likely to be rejected. On the other hand, smaller grants are less risky. - The demand for funding for individuals or small projects seems like it could increase much faster than it could for organizations because new organizations take time to be created (though maybe organizations can be quickly scaled).
Some possible solutions: - Move more money to smaller funds that tend to make smaller grants. For example, LTFF could ask for more money from Open Phil. - Hire more grant evaluators or hire full-time grant evaluators so that there is a higher ceiling on the total number of grants that can be made per year. - Demonstrate that smaller projects or individuals can be as effective as organizations to increase trust. - Seek more funding: half of LTFF’s funds come from direct donations so they could seek more direct donations. - Existing organizations could hire more individuals rather than the individuals seeking funding themselves. - Individuals (e.g. independent researchers) could form organizations to reduce the administrative load on grant-makers and increase their credibility.
Based on what I’ve written here, my verdict is that AI safety seems more funding constrained for small projects and individuals than it is for organizations for the following reasons:
- The funds that fund smaller projects such as LTFF tend to have less money than other funds such as Open Phil which seems to be more focused on making larger grants to organizations (Open Phil spends 14x more per year on AI safety).
- Funding could be constrained by the throughput of grant-makers (the number of grants they can make per year). This seems to put funds like LTFF at a disadvantage since they tend to make a larger number of smaller grants so they are more constrained by throughput than the total amount of money available. Low throughput incentivizes making a small number of large grants which favors large existing organizations over smaller projects or individuals.
- Individuals or small projects tend to be less well-known than organizations so grants for them can be harder to evaluate or might be more likely to be rejected. On the other hand, smaller grants are less risky.
- The demand for funding for individuals or small projects seems like it could increase much faster than it could for organizations because new organizations take time to be created (though maybe organizations can be quickly scaled).
Some possible solutions:
- Move more money to smaller funds that tend to make smaller grants. For example, LTFF could ask for more money from Open Phil.
- Hire more grant evaluators or hire full-time grant evaluators so that there is a higher ceiling on the total number of grants that can be made per year.
- Demonstrate that smaller projects or individuals can be as effective as organizations to increase trust.
- Seek more funding: half of LTFF’s funds come from direct donations so they could seek more direct donations.
- Existing organizations could hire more individuals rather than the individuals seeking funding themselves.
- Individuals (e.g. independent researchers) could form organizations to reduce the administrative load on grant-makers and increase their credibility.