CharitiesCenter on Long-Term Risk
Center on Long-Term Risk
Charity

Center on Long-Term Risk

AI Safety Research and Field Building

The Center on Long-Term Risk AI Safety Research and Field Building program addresses worst-case AI risks through research, identifying grants, and field building.

Reducing global catastrophic risks
Figure

What problem is the Center on Long-Term Risk working on?

The risks from the development and deployment of advanced AI systems pose a complex challenge. Because our resources are limited, CLR believes we need to prioritise and ask ourselves what actions we should take now to have as much of a positive impact as possible.

Some of the crucial considerations that inform CLR’s current priorities are:

  • Sufficiently advanced artificially intelligent systems are likely to shape the future of our civilization in uniquely profound ways.
  • This transformation may cause harm on an unprecedented scale, with agential risks like conflict and malevolence being particularly worrisome.
  • The chance that such systems will be developed in the next 30 years is sufficiently high to warrant action now.

What does the Center on Long-Term Risk do?

To address these risks, CLR:

You can read more about CLR’s research agenda and its focus on transparency on its website.

What information does Giving What We Can have about the cost-effectiveness of the Center on Long-Term Risk?1.

We don't currently have further information about the cost-effectiveness of the Center on Long-Term Risk beyond it doing work in a high-impact cause area and taking a reasonably promising approach.

Please note that GWWC does not evaluate individual charities. Our recommendations are based on the research of third-party, impact-focused charity evaluators our research team has found to be particularly well-suited to help donors do the most good per dollar, according to their recent evaluator investigations. Our other supported programs are those that align with our charitable purpose — they are working on a high-impact problem and take a reasonably promising approach (based on publicly-available information).

At Giving What We Can, we focus on the effectiveness of an organisation's work -- what the organisation is actually doing and whether their programs are making a big difference. Some others in the charity recommendation space focus instead on the ratio of admin costs to program spending, part of what we’ve termed the “overhead myth.” See why overhead isn’t the full story and learn more about our approach to charity evaluation.

We have varying degrees of information about the cost-effectiveness of our supported programs. We have more information about programs that impact-focused evaluators (some of which our research team expects to investigate soon as part of their evaluator investigations) have looked into, as well as programs that we’ve previously included on our list of recommended charities. We think it’s important to share the information we have with donors as we expect it will be useful in their donation decisions, but don’t want donors to mistakenly overweight the extent to which we share information about some charities and not others. Therefore, we want to clarify two things:

  • When we include information about an organisation’s cost-effectiveness, this may not be the only evidence that exists. It is simply the evidence the GWWC research team has at this time.
  • When we don’t include information about an organisation’s cost-effectiveness, this does not necessarily mean there is no such information. However, it does mean the GWWC research team isn’t privy to any more information at this time.