CharitiesCenter on Long-Term Risk Fund
Center on Long-Term Risk Fund
Fund

Center on Long-Term Risk

Center on Long-Term Risk Fund

The Center on Long-Term Risk Fund supports promising projects and individuals working on long-term risk mitigation related to advanced AI.

Reducing global catastrophic risks
Figure

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

The Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR) works to address worst-case risks from the development and deployment of advanced artificial intelligence systems, with a current focus on conflict scenarios and the technical and philosophical aspects of cooperation.

What projects does the Center on Long-Term Risk Fund support?

The CLR Fund primarily supports individuals who want to make research contributions to CLR’s current priority areas. However, it will also support other high-quality projects if its fund managers believe it will contribute to reducing risks of suffering (now or in the future).

Recent grant recipients include:

  • Asher Soryl — research on the ethics of panspermia.
  • Bogdan-Ionut Cirstea — year-long research project on short AI timelines.
  • Nandy Schoots — three-month research project on simplicity bias in neural nets.

For more information about how donations are allocated, see the list of past recipients and the grantmaking process on the CLR website.

Unsure how a fund is different from a charity? See our page about why we recommend donors give to funds.

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

We don't currently have further information about the cost-effectiveness of the Center on Long-Term Risk Fund 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.