The longtermist funding ecosystem needs certain functions to exist at a reasonable scale. I argue LTFF should continue to be funded because we're currently one of the only organizations comprehensively serving these functions. Specifically, we:

• Fund early-stage technical AI safety researchers working outside major labs
• Help talented people transition into existential risk work
• Provide independent funding voices to balance out AI company influence
• Move quickly to fund promising work in emerging areas, including "weirder" but potentially high-impact projects

Getting these functions right takes meaningful resources - well over $1M annually. This figure isn't arbitrary: $1M funds roughly 10 person-years of work, split between supporting career transitions and independent research. Given what we're trying to achieve - from maintaining independent AI safety voices to seeding new fields like x-risk focused information security - this is arguably a minimum viable scale.

While I'm excited to see some of these functions [...]

---

Outline:

(01:55) Core Argument

(04:11) Key Functions Currently (Almost) Unique to LTFF

(04:17) Technical AI Safety Funding

(04:40) Why arent other funders investing in GCR-focused technical AI Safety?

(06:27) Career Transitions and Early Researcher Funding

(07:44) Why arent other groups investing in improving career transitions in existential risk reduction?

(09:05) Going Forwards

(10:02) Providing (Some) Counterbalance to AI Companies on AI Safety

(11:39) Going Forwards

(12:21) Funding New Project Areas and Approaches

(13:18) Going Forwards

(14:01) Broader Funding Case

(14:05) Why Current Funding Levels Matter

(16:03) Going Forwards

(17:36) Conclusion

(18:41) Appendix: LTFFs Institutional Features

(18:57) Transparency and Communication

(19:41) Operational Features

---

First published:

Source:

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.