AI Safety Strategy·Exploring·Last reviewed May 1, 2026
This page is a stub. I’ve marked the territory but haven’t written my views here yet. The headings below are placeholders — the actual beliefs, uncertainties, and evidence are still in my notes. If you want my current take on this topic before it lands here, get in touch.
Where I currently stand
<Headline view: how I read the funding landscape today — how concentrated it is, where government money is or isn't showing up, and whether the field's research agenda is being shaped by funder preferences in ways worth flagging. 3–4 sentences.>
Current beliefs
- <e.g. The field is uncomfortably concentrated on a small number of philanthropic funders, and this distorts research agendas more than people acknowledge.> ~XX% — <one-line why>.
- <Claim about whether government safety funding (UK AISI, US AISI, EU programmes) is large enough to meaningfully diversify the base.> ~XX% — <why>.
- <Claim about whether the field has too much money chasing too few good projects, or the reverse.> ~XX% — <why>.
Uncertainties
- What does a healthy, diversified safety-funding base look like? Why it matters: hard to advocate for diversification without a target picture.
- Are research agendas materially shaped by what funders find legible, and how would we tell? Why it matters: this is the steelman of the "philanthropic capture" worry.
What would update me
- Sustained government safety funding at >$1B/yr in a single jurisdiction would push me toward thinking concentration risk is on its way to resolving.
- Documented cases of funder preferences killing or quietly retargeting otherwise-promising agendas would push me toward stronger views on capture.
Recent reading
- <date> — <title> — <takeaway>.
Related writing
No essays tagged with this topic yet.