pull down to refresh

As the AI space continues to innovate and become more integrated into life various groups across the spectrum are taking notice and beginning to make their moves. AI, much like crypto before it, has seen countless nonprofit and coalition groups appear and begin to lobby Congress and the rest of the Federal Government to steer the policy moves being made. Due to the sheer number of groups out there a nonprofit with only $2.4 million naturally would fall to the back when compared to the heavily funded others. Thanks to Vatalik Buterin though that once small and overlooked player, the Future of Life Institute (FLI), has suddenly stumbled into an enormous windfall.
The donation from Vatalik Buterin was fueled entirely by the Shiba Inu tokens he was gifted when the project first launched in 2021. When he received this enormous sum the news focused on his decision to burn 90% of the supply that he was gifted even though there was still 10% left which he did say he was going to donate to a charity "with similar values to cryptorelief (preventing large-scale loss of life) but with a more long-term orientation. At the time he had not decided who was going to receive this donation but later on that month what could only be described as a "money bomb" was given to Future of Life Institute.
A nonprofit going from $2.4 million to over $667 million, they valued the donation at $665 million, in one swoop is extremely extremely rare. More often than not something like this would only happen when the nonprofit was being created and launched so that they have funds to get off the ground and get moving. This however is a much different case and does not have a comparison to it.
So what has happened with the money you might wonder. Well, based on their tax forms Future of Life Institute (FLI) has spent a fraction of it on gifts for AI safety researchers and organizations favoring tight rules on the technologies development. These donations to other organizations are small and I honestly could not find a number but it highlights the angle this nonprofit is going for.
FLI's outlook on advanced AI is that it is a threat to human life while at the same time ignoring the more pressing issues facing the technology like bias, discrimination, and job loss. It has called for governments to require licenses for AI development and/or place limits on open-source models. Ideas like this are extremely difficult to navigate because of a few specific things. First, it means getting all governments across the world to sign on and the likelihood of that is 0 so essentially it leads to the US and others limiting themselves while others push forward. The second issue and arguably the more pressing is that these regulations are being pushed for by AI leaders right now because they would be the only ones able to compete.
Over the last year, they have also grown immensely in significance. Four of the groups receiving money are now advising the Washington AI Safety Institute which is being set up by NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) and other groups are key players in London's AI safety plans. Its president and co-founder Max Tegmark has even testified at a Senate forum on AI in fall 2023. Several board members have also been appointed to key positions worldwide including to the UN's new AI Advisory Body while also successfully lobbying the EU on its AI Act to include new rules on foundational AI models.
To the general public though there is one big news event people might remember. FLI was behind the viral letter last year calling for a "pause" in AI research. Huge tech names signed on including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and Elon Musk which drove attention to it. Over the next few months as Congress drives into the AI subject, it will be interesting to see how much of a role FLI will try to play here.
A lot of people are catching on to this school of thought.
Some interesting ones of note:
  • MacKenzie Bezos to Social Justice Inc
  • SBF to Anthropic (which possibly led to getting enough compute to make Claude3 on par with GPT4)
  • Jack Dorsey to various Anti-Racist / BLM initiatives
  • Dustin Moskovitz to EA
  • (what else?)
Beyond just today's headlines, there seems to be a long history of the non-profit sphere being infiltrated and subverted by a progressive agenda - Ford and Rockefeller foundations are usually the go-to examples. But overall, even twenty years ago it felt like charitable giving was more centrist where something like United Way - which would fund a mix of both religious-type and social worker type approaches - was much more common than today. But maybe that's because the super rich were more traditional industrialist types, rather than today's technologist / futurist set.
What are these mega donors buying for their billions? I would speculative psychological motives as: MacKenzie wants to be liked by cool people, Dorsey and Buterin want to be principled and visionary, SBF and Moskovitz want to expand their sphere of influence.
Beyond whatever policy recommendations are promoted by FLI, I think it's worth examining what makes these nonprofits so seductive to their benefactors mindset when choosing which of the thousands of organizations that could use the money.
reply
Off the top of my head, I do know one way and that is that they will have their kids or relatives "run" the nonprofit and make stupid high salaries and have all sorts of stuff paid for. It is a tax write-off for the rich and it makes them look like they care... just as long as people do not look at who is in charge of that nonprofit and where the money goes.
Another thing you alluded to that I think is the biggest issue that needs to be investigated is it isn't like these donations go to large established nonprofits that know what they are doing. These new ones pop up like startups get a flood of money and then end up folding years later. When you have a full-time staff of two people like FLI did and you get this type of money.... come on it's clear as day you are being bought or rewarded for puppetting ideas of the one who provided the cash.
I'm not necessarily against someone like Dorsey donating to a nonprofit that would arguably fall in his industry since I think a lot of good can be done in helping people learn about their finances but like you pointed out its not always with even remotely good intentions. I would much rather see someone like Dorsey on the board or something like that helping direct the funds because he knows where the issues are, and where the regulations are, and people would be more receptive to listening to him to actually help the people.
Kinda like if Warren Buffet with Kraft (I think he still owns a lion's share of it) made a huge donation of food. He/his people would be extremely well equipped to get food to where it needed to go as fast as possible.
reply
Agree 100%. Why can't there by an e/acc charity that takes in a billion? What isn't there an e/acc channel on stacker news?!
reply