Great to hear the second round was successful. Given an anonymous AI org is taking up half of the budget, I wonder what the overall approach of the org is, what makes you think you’re the best-suited funder for it, or what reasons led to granting anonymity to the organization. If there’s anything you’d be willing to share on any of these, it’d be greatly appreciated!
Unfortunately, we can’t share much. In some cases, applicants have a preference for anonymity, for one reason or another and we have to respect their wishes to maintain trust and integrity in our application process.
In an investigative reporting setting, it is common to see the reason why anonymity was requested and granted, e.g. someone “requested anonymity to avoid potential retribution from their employer.” There is also a general norm around trusting quoted sources that can be verified over anonymous comments. I think these norms have evolved because they are useful for credibility.
Applicants’ wishes are usually aligned with our assessments, so far we haven’t deviated from the wishes of the applicants we ultimately choose to fund.
Great to hear the second round was successful. Given an anonymous AI org is taking up half of the budget, I wonder what the overall approach of the org is, what makes you think you’re the best-suited funder for it, or what reasons led to granting anonymity to the organization. If there’s anything you’d be willing to share on any of these, it’d be greatly appreciated!
Unfortunately, we can’t share much. In some cases, applicants have a preference for anonymity, for one reason or another and we have to respect their wishes to maintain trust and integrity in our application process.
In an investigative reporting setting, it is common to see the reason why anonymity was requested and granted, e.g. someone “requested anonymity to avoid potential retribution from their employer.” There is also a general norm around trusting quoted sources that can be verified over anonymous comments. I think these norms have evolved because they are useful for credibility.
I understand! Out of curiosity, does whether the organization want to stay anonymous factor into the decision in any way?
Applicants’ wishes are usually aligned with our assessments, so far we haven’t deviated from the wishes of the applicants we ultimately choose to fund.
I think mhendric was asking whether an applicant’s anonymity preferences affect their chance of getting funding
Ah, sorry that makes a lot more sense haha!
All decisions are made by funders individually, so I can’t speak for everyone, but overall I don’t think it has influenced people much so far.
Of course, if we thought applicants had bad reasons for wanting to remain anonymous then that would be a red flag.
Thanks both, that’s exactly what I meant to be asking.