We do fund a small amount of non AI/bio work so it seems bad to rule those areas out.
It could be worth bringing more attention to the breakdown of our public grants if the application distribution is very different to the funded one, I’ll check next week internally to see if that’s the case.
I meant specifically mentioning that you don’t really fund global catastrophic risk work on climate change, ecological collapse, near-Earth objects (e.g., asteroids, comets), nuclear weapons, and supervolcanic eruptions. Because to my knowledge such work has not been funded for several years now (please correct me if this is wrong). And as you mentioned that status quo will continue, I don’t really see a reason to expect that the LTFF will start funding such work in the foreseeable future.
Thanks for wanting to check in if there is a difference between the public grants and the application distribution. Would be curious to hear the results.
We do fund a small amount of non AI/bio work so it seems bad to rule those areas out.
It could be worth bringing more attention to the breakdown of our public grants if the application distribution is very different to the funded one, I’ll check next week internally to see if that’s the case.
I meant specifically mentioning that you don’t really fund global catastrophic risk work on climate change, ecological collapse, near-Earth objects (e.g., asteroids, comets), nuclear weapons, and supervolcanic eruptions. Because to my knowledge such work has not been funded for several years now (please correct me if this is wrong). And as you mentioned that status quo will continue, I don’t really see a reason to expect that the LTFF will start funding such work in the foreseeable future.
Thanks for wanting to check in if there is a difference between the public grants and the application distribution. Would be curious to hear the results.