However, some of the public stances he has taken make it difficult for grantmakers to associate themselves with him. Even if OP were otherwise very excited to fund AISC, it would be political suicide for them to do so. They can’t even get away with funding university clubs.
(I lead the GCR Capacity Building team at Open Phil and have evaluated AI Safety Camp for funding in the past.)
AISC leadership’s involvement in Stop AI protests was not a factor in our no-fund decision (which was made before the post you link to).
For AI safety talent programs, I think it’s quite unlikely we’d consider something like “leadership involvement in protests” on its own as a significant factor in a funding decision. So I don’t think the “it would be political suicide” reasoning you give here is reflective of our decision process.
(I lead the GCR Capacity Building team at Open Phil and have evaluated AI Safety Camp for funding in the past.)
AISC leadership’s involvement in Stop AI protests was not a factor in our no-fund decision (which was made before the post you link to).
For AI safety talent programs, I think it’s quite unlikely we’d consider something like “leadership involvement in protests” on its own as a significant factor in a funding decision. So I don’t think the “it would be political suicide” reasoning you give here is reflective of our decision process.
Hey! Thanks, this is really useful input! :) I will update this bit of the text and link to your comment