Center on Long-Term Risk
Center on Long-Term Risk Fund
The Center on Long-Term Risk Fund supports promising projects and individuals that are working to build a global community of researchers and professionals dedicated to reducing involuntary suffering due to emerging technologies.
What problem is the Center on Long-Term Risk Fund working on?
The Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR) works to address worst-case risks from the development and deployment of advanced artificial intelligence systems, with a current focus on conflict scenarios and the technical and philosophical aspects of cooperation.
What projects does the Center on Long-Term Risk Fund support?
The CLR Fund primarily supports individuals who want to make research contributions to CLR’s current priority areas. However, it will also support other high-quality projects if its fund managers believe it will contribute to reducing risks of suffering (now or in the future).
Recent grant recipients include:
- Asher Soryl — research on the ethics of panspermia.
- Bogdan-Ionut Cirstea — year-long research project on short AI timelines.
- Nandy Schoots — three-month research project on simplicity bias in neural nets.
For more information about how donations are allocated, see the list of past recipients and the grantmaking porcess on the CLR website.
What information does Giving What We Can have about the cost-effectiveness of the Center on Long-Term Risk Fund?
We don't currently have further information about the cost-effectiveness of the Center on Long-Term Risk Fund beyond it doing work in a high-impact cause area and taking a reasonably promising approach.
Please note that GWWC does not evaluate individual charities. Our recommendations are based on the research of third-party, impact-focused charity evaluators our research team has found to be particularly well-suited to help donors do the most good per dollar, according to their recent evaluator investigations. Our other supported programs are those that align with our charitable purpose — they are working on a high-impact problem and take a reasonably promising approach (based on publicly-available information).
At Giving What We Can, we focus on the effectiveness of an organisation's work -- what the organisation is actually doing and whether their programs are making a big difference. Some others in the charity recommendation space focus instead on the ratio of admin costs to program spending, part of what we’ve termed the “overhead myth.” See why overhead isn’t the full story and learn more about our approach to charity evaluation.