Hide table of contents

Below is a fictionalized list of grants the Long-term Future Fund (LTFF) narrowly rejected or accepted in the last 6 months. We aim to broadly convey which grants we barely rejected, while anonymizing any individual one. It follows our previous two posts on marginal grantmaking, from August and November of 2023. We hope this is useful to potential donors and other community members.

As the grants we’ve fictionalized are grants LTFF narrowly accepted or rejected, additional funding to LTFF will allow us to roughly pay for projects of similar or slightly lower quality and approximate cost-effectiveness. If that appeals to you, please consider donating here (alt : every.org).

Grants

6-month stipend to continue AI safety independent research through temporal understanding and deception detection ($60,000)

This 6-month project investigates situational awareness in language models through temporal understanding, aiming to develop realistic scenarios for deceptive alignment by exploring future-past representations, training distribution-shift-based backdoors, and evaluating targeted safety interventions. The investigator has published research on multimodal robustness benchmarking, automated debiasing, and temporal convolutional networks in major ML venues, while demonstrating organizational leadership by scaling a technical volunteering program from 20 to 150+ practitioners serving 35 partner organizations.

10-month stipend for advancing biosecurity through DNA synthesis screening standards ($105,000)

This 10-month project strengthens biosecurity safeguards by developing technical security standards for emerging DNA synthesis platforms, creating nucleic acid screening policies, and building consensus among industry stakeholders through national and international standards bodies. The investigator has published multiple papers on biosecurity governance and DNA screening in venues like AAAI[1] and Global Biosecurity, directly advised major DNA synthesis companies and government agencies on security implementations, and achieved concrete policy outcomes including proposed screening guidelines adopted by international consortiums and security recommendations implemented by commercial manufacturers.

Stipend for international law expert to finish a book advancing AI governance frameworks ($25,000)

This 4-month project develops foundational frameworks for international AI governance through writing a book on catastrophic risk law, contributing handbook chapters on AI treaties, and drafting model governance structures, while directly advising key international bodies on AI policy. The investigator has authored influential policy papers on institutional models for AI governance, contributed to major international principles on intergenerational equity, shaped executive-level AI policy directives, and built academic-policy networks across multiple international organizations, while developing the first legal framework for governing catastrophic AI risks through Yale University Press. The grant will be a stipend to pay them to finish the book; earlier sections were funded elsewhere.

Stipend for empirical analysis of coalition-building dynamics within AI governance ($40,000)

This 8-month project examines effective AI governance through data-driven analysis of industry influence, regulatory dynamics, and alliance-building strategies, combining systematic collection of corporate metrics with game-theoretic modeling of institutional cooperation. The investigator has developed a long-form interview series exploring emerging technology risks with 50+ episodes, led technical research teams studying multi-agent AI systems, and scaled student organizations focused on AI safety from 20 to 200+ members, while producing policy research on institutional decision-making. The project will be mentored by respected AI policy researchers in an academic setting.

Tuition and partial stipend subsidy for 1 year of doctoral research on security of advanced biotechnologies ($40,000)

This thesis project analyzes emerging biotechnology vulnerabilities through systematic risk assessment of synthesis technologies, developing a timeline-based framework for evaluating bioterrorism pathways, and creating evidence-based policy recommendations for counterterrorism interventions. The investigator has demonstrated strategic leadership in national biosecurity policy implementation, developed computational tools for security applications, and built cross-sector health security networks while maintaining research positions at leading institutions. (The project is partially funded elsewhere)

9 months’ stipend for developing a benchmark for goal-directedness in large language models ($65,000)

We cover 3 people’s stipends for three months to develop a benchmark for assessing goal-directed behavior in language models through simulated environments, adversarial testing, and distributional shift scenarios to measure model robustness and capability trends. The investigators have developed evaluation frameworks showing capability differences across architectures, contributed 25,000+ test cases to public benchmarks, published in peer-reviewed venues, and expanded their research initiative from 4 to 7 members while delivering technical training.

Part-time project for replacing neural networks with interpretable programs ($6,000)

This part-time project aims to create transparent, programmatic replacements for sparse autoencoder neurons in language models by developing symbolic representations in Python, evaluating their predictive accuracy, and measuring their impact on model performance through cross-entropy loss. The investigator has published research on neural network optimization and language model architectures in major ML venues, developed open-source interpretability tools, and demonstrated expertise in language model training and low-level optimization methods across industry and research settings. The investigator has a full-time job in industry and our stipend only covers weekends working on this research project.

One year of costs for an AI safety talent and community-building project in Southeast Asia ($50,000)

This project aims to strengthen the AI safety field across Southeast Asia[1] by expanding a proven community-building model through targeted social media outreach, local events, and educational programming for high-potential individuals. The organization has grown active membership from 20 to 250+ participants, delivered 10 technical workshops with 85% satisfaction, and partnered with 10 institutions while achieving 45% conversion from initial contact to sustained engagement.

3 years of PhD work on an AI predictability framework to enable safer deployment ($175,000)

This project develops a framework for evaluating and monitoring AI system predictability through behavioral indicator assessment, human-AI interaction analysis across four manifolds, and scalable oversight mechanisms. The investigator has published research on AI system reliability and evaluation in major journals, conducted extensive safety testing of large language models, and contributed evaluation frameworks for assessing AI capabilities and risks while working with leading research institutions and safety organizations.

___

The above fictionalized examples illustrate grants that are at or just below our current funding threshold. If these projects seem worth funding to you, please consider donating to us here (alt: every.org).

  1. ^

    All proper nouns should be assumed to be fictionalized.

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing this, I have been really enjoying reading the comms coming from EAIF/LTFF lately! Here are some observations/feedback on the post:

Below is a fictionalized list of grants the Long-term Future Fund (LTFF) narrowly rejected or accepted in the last 6 months. We aim to broadly convey which grants we barely rejected, while anonymizing any individual one.
[...]
As the grants we’ve fictionalized are grants LTFF narrowly accepted or rejected

After reading the post, I feel like I really miss knowing which of these did or did not pass your bar. I understand that these are fictional examples that are all very close to the bar, but I think others might feel the same way. If you think it might be worth spelling out why you don't think it makes sense to give explicit verdicts.

The above fictionalized examples illustrate grants that are at or just below our current funding threshold

Or perhaps this means all of them were rejected? (It might just be my English, but it's not clear to me if something is at your funding bar, then you would accept or reject it)

On a related note, if all of these grants were rejected, would the applicants asking for 10-25% less funding would make them pass your bar? Do you often end up funding the "MVP" version of a project as opposed to the "mainline budget" they propose?

Executive summary: The Long-Term Future Fund shares examples of grants they narrowly accepted or rejected, illustrating their funding threshold and demonstrating that additional donations would support similar projects focused on AI safety, biosecurity, and related existential risk research.

Key points:

  1. Grant amounts range from $6,000 to $175,000, covering research stipends, PhD work, and community building projects.
  2. Focus areas include AI safety (interpretability, benchmarking, governance), biosecurity (DNA synthesis screening), and international policy frameworks.
  3. Most projects demonstrate strong prior expertise, institutional connections, and concrete track records of impact.
  4. Projects typically combine technical research with practical applications or policy implications.
  5. The fund seeks additional donations to support more projects at this threshold of quality and cost-effectiveness.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f