Editorial illustration for Nonprofit Avoids AI Funding to Preserve Independence
Nonprofit Rejects AI Funding to Stay Independent
Nonprofit Avoids AI Funding to Preserve Independence
Ryan Carrier founded ForHumanity in 2016 after watching Facebook's algorithms rattle US elections, a Microsoft chatbot claim the Holocaust "was made up," and Tesla's Autopilot kill its first driver. His nonprofit builds tools for auditing AI systems, the kind of oversight he thought was missing entirely. Nine years later, ForHumanity has raised only a few hundred thousand dollars and remains a small operation in a field now dominated by trillion-dollar companies.
That could change fast. OpenAI and Anthropic are both nearing IPOs that stand to mint hundreds of new millionaires and billionaires among current and former staff. Some of these employees subscribe to effective altruism, a philosophy that pushes donors to give large sums quickly rather than let wealth sit. Anthropic's seven founders have already pledged 80 percent of their fortunes to charity, and the company has agreed to match employee stock pledges with its own shares, on a sliding scale tied to tenure.
Nonprofits working on AI safety, animal welfare, poverty and global health are watching closely, positioning themselves for what could be the biggest philanthropic windfall in a generation. Carrier's organization is one of many hoping to catch some of it.
Rough estimates by a tech industry insider suggest that Anthropic’s IPO, which could happen in September, may result in $15 billion a year in additional philanthropic giving alone. That would be enough to boost total US giving by about 2.5 percent annually—the same as adding four Bill Gates’s, one of the world’s biggest donors.
Why this matters
Carrier's bet, and MET's refusal to take money from OpenAI or Anthropic staff, is a small but telling signal about where AI accountability work is heading. The next wave of IPO wealth from OpenAI, Anthropic, and their peers will need somewhere to go, and nonprofits doing audit and evaluation work are obvious candidates. But money from the labs you're supposed to be scrutinizing comes with strings, even unspoken ones.
MET's decision to pass on employee donations shows some groups are treating funding sources as a governance question, not just a fundraising one. For developers and founders building on these models, that matters: the evaluators checking your tools need to be believable to regulators, insurers, and the public, not just funded. For researchers, it's a reminder that independence has to be designed in from the start, because once a nonprofit takes lab money, walking it back is much harder than declining it up front.
Watch which auditing groups take the windfall and which don't. That split will tell you a lot about who's actually independent when it counts.
Related Reading
Business & Startups Nordic pilot adds Gemini for Education, NotebookLM to boost AI literacy
Business & Startups Kling launches Video O1, all-in-one model with MVL bridge using transformer
Business & Startups DeepSeek Seeks More Capital Weeks After USD 7B Funding Round
From Archives Microsoft Cybersecurity AI Claims 96% Success Rate in Internal Tests
From Archives Sutskever's AI startup partners with Nvidia for scaling
Common Questions Answered
Why did Ryan Carrier found ForHumanity and what tools does the nonprofit develop?
Ryan Carrier founded ForHumanity in 2016 after witnessing several AI-related incidents, including Facebook's algorithms affecting US elections, a Microsoft chatbot denying the Holocaust, and Tesla's Autopilot causing a fatal accident. The nonprofit builds tools specifically designed for auditing AI systems, addressing what Carrier identified as a critical gap in AI oversight at the time.
How much funding has ForHumanity raised compared to the trillion-dollar AI companies dominating the field?
ForHumanity has raised only a few hundred thousand dollars over nine years, making it a small operation in a field now dominated by trillion-dollar companies. This significant funding disparity highlights the resource gap between independent AI accountability nonprofits and major AI labs.
What is the potential impact of Anthropic's IPO on philanthropic giving to AI oversight nonprofits?
According to rough estimates from a tech industry insider, Anthropic's IPO in September could result in $15 billion a year in additional philanthropic giving alone. This influx would be equivalent to boosting total US giving by approximately 2.5 percent annually, or the same as adding four Bill Gates-level donors to the philanthropic landscape.
Why is ForHumanity and similar nonprofits refusing funding from OpenAI and Anthropic employees?
Nonprofits like ForHumanity are refusing donations from employees of the AI labs they are supposed to be auditing and scrutinizing to preserve their independence. The concern is that accepting money from the organizations being evaluated, even indirectly through employee donations, could create unspoken strings attached that compromise the nonprofit's ability to conduct objective oversight.
Further Reading
- Why Funders Freeze on AI — and How to Break the Paralysis - Center for Effective Philanthropy
- The Top AI Risks in the Nonprofit Sector - BDO
- Commentary: A Declaration Of Independence For Nonprofit AI - The NonProfit Times
- Closing the Nonprofit Funding Gap in the Age of AI - The Bridgespan Group
- AI in the Nonprofit Sector Is a Question of Governance, Not Just Technology - Nonprofit Quarterly
