The AI Philanthropy Boom: Nonprofits Brace for a Multi-Billion Dollar Windfall

A decade ago, Ryan Carrier, a former hedge fund manager, found himself grappling with the unsettling emergence of artificial intelligence systems that seemed to be operating beyond human control. He witnessed firsthand how powerful algorithms could destabilize society, citing examples such as Facebook’s algorithms significantly influencing US elections, a Microsoft chatbot making deeply offensive claims about the Holocaust, and a Tesla Autopilot system being implicated in the death of its first driver. Carrier articulated his profound concern, stating, "There was no governance, oversight, or accountability." The future, particularly for his children, appeared increasingly bleak in an AI-saturated world lacking ethical guardrails.

Driven by these anxieties, Carrier embarked on a new path, founding ForHumanity in 2016. This nonprofit organization dedicated itself to developing robust tools for auditing AI systems, aiming to instill the very governance and accountability he felt were missing. Despite its crucial mission, ForHumanity has operated on a modest budget, raising only hundreds of thousands of dollars since its inception and remaining a relatively minor player in the burgeoning AI ethics landscape. However, this long-standing dynamic is poised for a dramatic shift. ForHumanity, alongside a multitude of other nonprofits worldwide—organizations striving to address diverse global challenges such as reigning in AI, improving animal welfare, eradicating poverty and sickness, and promoting democracy—are now eagerly anticipating what is widely expected to be the most substantial wave of philanthropic giving in decades.

This unprecedented surge in charitable donations is directly linked to the impending public offerings of two of the artificial intelligence industry’s titans: ChatGPT developer OpenAI and Claude creator Anthropic. Both companies, each valued at nearly a trillion dollars, are on the cusp of going public, a move that will transform hundreds of their current and former employees into ultra-wealthy individuals. A significant number of these future millionaires and billionaires are adherents of "effective altruism," a philosophical movement that champions making highly impactful donations sooner rather than later, prioritizing causes that offer the greatest good for the greatest number.

The founders of Anthropic, a collective of seven individuals, have already set a remarkable precedent, pledging to donate an impressive 80 percent of their accumulated wealth. Furthermore, Anthropic as a company has committed to a generous matching program, contributing one or three shares for every share its employees pledge to charity, depending on their tenure and up to a specified limit. This institutional commitment signals a powerful alignment with philanthropic goals right from the top.

According to conservative estimates from a well-placed tech industry insider, Anthropic’s initial public offering alone, potentially scheduled for September, could generate an astonishing $15 billion annually in additional philanthropic giving. To put this figure into perspective, such an influx would boost total US charitable giving by approximately 2.5 percent each year—an impact comparable to adding four philanthropists of the stature of Bill Gates, one of the world’s most prolific donors. While Anthropic has remained tight-lipped, declining to comment on the precise total amount employees have earmarked for donation or the specific organizations that might benefit, the potential scale of this generosity is immense.

However, this anticipated financial bonanza is far from guaranteed. The IPOs could face delays, or market conditions might lead to less favorable outcomes, potentially causing employees to cling more tightly to their newly acquired wealth. Industry observers also voice concerns that the sheer volume of charitable options available could prove paralyzing for new donors, or that natural human fickleness might lead workers to donate less than initially anticipated.

Despite these uncertainties, the competition for the attention of these prospective donors is already exceptionally fierce. Jack Lewars, a consultant who provided guidance to 13 ultra-wealthy tech and finance professionals on their charitable giving last year, notes that employees at the prominent AI labs are reportedly receiving as many as 20 unsolicited emails a week from various groups seeking donations.

WIRED conducted interviews with 18 nonprofit organizations and reached out to dozens more to understand their preparations for this potential philanthropic windfall. Interestingly, none of the contacted organizations admitted to engaging in cold pitching—a fundraising tactic that Lewars, on his newly launched blog, The Funding Anthropalypse, explicitly advises against, writing that it "has next to no chance of working." Instead, organizations report actively ramping up their internal capacities: hiring new staff, enhancing training programs, intensifying marketing efforts, and strategically deploying automation to better position themselves to attract substantial funding and ensure its rapid and effective deployment. One particularly telling job posting at an education nonprofit specifically highlighted "building up relationships at Anthropic" as a key priority, underscoring the targeted nature of some fundraising efforts.

"Everybody’s going to go after these funds," predicts Christine Peterson, cofounder of the Foresight Institute, a grantmaking group that claims to have already received funding from Anthropic employees. She succinctly summarizes the sentiment pervading the nonprofit sector: "It’s going to be a wild ride."

The Inside Track

Like many nonprofit leaders interviewed by WIRED, ForHumanity’s Ryan Carrier maintains that his primary focus remains on the organization’s core work rather than on fundraising. However, he acknowledges that this moment represents a significant opportunity that may necessitate a strategic shift. He has begun to ponder how to gain access to the exclusive IPO celebration soirees in San Francisco. "I just have to get in that room," Carrier emphasizes, highlighting the importance of direct access to potential donors.

Bo Young Lee, CEO of the nonprofit AI4ALL, is similarly proactive. Her strategy involves increasing her presence at industry events, disseminating more research, and leveraging her influential board members, such as renowned AI scientist and entrepreneur Fei-Fei Li, to secure introductions to key employees at the AI labs. AI4ALL’s mission is to train young adults across the US in developing their own AI models, with the overarching goal of fostering a more diverse and inclusive tech workforce. Lee expresses confidence in the forthcoming funding, setting "ambitious" fundraising goals even though direct introductory meetings have yet to materialize.

Buck Shlegeris, CEO of Redwood Research, a Berkeley, California-based nonprofit, represents a growing segment of smaller organizations dedicated to AI safety. From his vantage point, directly targeting individual donors is not the most optimal strategy. Instead, Redwood Research has primarily secured millions of dollars from intermediary grantmaking groups like Coefficient Giving and the Survival and Flourishing Fund. These organizations aggregate donations from individuals and are deeply rooted in the effective altruism movement. Shlegeris anticipates that the new wave of wealth will predominantly flow into these established intermediaries, which will then channel funds to organizations like Redwood.

With this expectation, Shlegeris is focusing on internal capacity building, particularly accelerating the training of staffers to become managers. This proactive measure is based on the belief that significant financial inflows will enable his teams to expand rapidly and undertake "crazy expensive projects," such as automating safety research and developing Redwood’s own advanced AI models. The ultimate objective of Redwood Research is to minimize the existential risk that AI could pose to humanity, a threat Shlegeris candidly admits he fears has a "really strong chance" of materializing.

A crucial subset of AI safety research centers on preventing the misuse of advanced technology, particularly in the creation of bioweapons. Venture capitalist Geoff Ralston recently co-authored a comprehensive action plan advocating for the raising of $2.5 billion over the next five years to bolster AI biosecurity. Ralston intends to actively solicit donations from those poised to benefit from the impending IPO windfall, asserting, "The folks at frontier labs understand the threat vectors created by AI better than anyone."

Several influential grantmakers within effective altruism circles are also meticulously preparing for this philanthropic surge by offering crucial support to newer nonprofits. This assistance often involves helping these organizations "level up" their administrative capabilities and bookkeeping practices. The overarching goal is to ensure that a greater number of organizations are adequately equipped to efficiently manage and deploy the anticipated influx of donations. Stien van der Ploeg, executive director at Animal Charity Evaluators, succinctly describes this preparatory work: "We’re trying to build the port before the ship arrives." Over the past year, her organization has already directed approximately $15 million to nonprofits focused on mitigating the most egregious forms of cruelty in industrial farming.

Similarly, Coefficient Giving is making a concerted effort to support promising up-and-coming organizations. This month, its largest donors, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna, committed a staggering $1 billion to global health projects. This "one-off surge," nearly six times larger than initially planned, was strategically designed to create "scalable opportunities" that can "effectively absorb much higher amounts of future giving," as stated by Coefficient.

GiveDirectly, another organization highly favored by effective altruists, has discreetly raised a round of funding specifically from donors to support its preparations for the giving wave. This nonprofit, which specializes in directly transferring unconditional cash to individuals experiencing poverty or crisis, is utilizing these funds to hire more engineers to automate its finance and human resources systems. Furthermore, it is actively forging partnerships to enable faster deployment of aid during natural disasters and has begun developing a comprehensive plan for a "global AI wealth dividend" aimed at directly funding people in extreme poverty. GiveDirectly CEO Nick Allardice acknowledges the "uncertainty" surrounding the IPOs but stresses that this moment is "worth taking very seriously."

More Cautious

Despite the widespread excitement, some organizations express apprehension that they might be overlooked or "left behind." This concern often stems from their geographic distance from the San Francisco AI community or their focus on issues such as child safety or political disinformation, which may not align as directly with the perceived priorities of potential donors, particularly those influenced by effective altruism.

A broadly shared anxiety among nonprofits is the potential for a severe imbalance in funding distribution. There is a fear that the sheer volume of money could lead to overflowing coffers for certain causes, while other equally urgent issues attract minimal funding. For instance, groups addressing the existential risks posed by AI to humanity—a paramount priority for many effective altruists—are widely expected to receive significantly more backing than organizations striving to improve human rights by, for example, combating mass surveillance or mitigating online harms.

This possibility has been a source of considerable concern for Marlena Wisniak, who oversees digital strategy at the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL). ECNL focuses on AI policy and research, and Wisniak has been diligently working to elevate the profile of organizations that might otherwise be overlooked, especially those operating in the Global South. Her efforts recently bore fruit when a friend working at Anthropic donated $100,000 to a group that precisely fits this description. Wisniak is now actively trying to persuade her contacts at both OpenAI and Anthropic to share her curated list of human rights and social justice organizations with their colleagues. She is also advising these nonprofits to frame their work using terminology such as "theory of change" and "evidence-backed," which tend to resonate more effectively with individuals aligned with effective altruism.

A few organizations have made the deliberate decision to opt out of actively soliciting funds during this period. Earlier this year, Model Evaluation and Threat Research, a nonprofit that rigorously evaluates OpenAI and Anthropic models, decided against seeking funding from employees at those companies. Their reasoning was clear: such funding could potentially jeopardize the nonprofit’s perceived independence and objectivity. Other groups harbor concerns about the reputational implications of receiving funding from sources linked to effective altruism, fearing that it might alienate partners or other donors. This apprehension stems from past criticisms of the movement as being insular and occasionally misguided, according to an anonymous source familiar with the nonprofits’ thinking on this sensitive issue. However, a communications adviser representing several effective altruism-aligned organizations, though not authorized to speak on their behalf, countered these concerns, stating that the movement "has continued to grow its funding, talent, and impact, and the increasing willingness of major funders to work with EA-aligned groups reflects that these purported reputational fears are overblown."

Veteran figures in the nonprofit sector are largely advocating for general caution. They warn against organizations neglecting their core missions or contorting their projects merely to fit a mold that appeals to the new wave of wealthy donors. Fundraisers are also acutely aware of the ethical dilemma: the wealth being generated is a direct byproduct of building AI tools that, in some instances, are actively exacerbating the very problems these nonprofits are striving to tackle. AI4ALL’s Lee articulates this critical concern: "The risk today is this industrialized wealth from these IPOs may not serve human good in hindsight. We have to avoid the allure of easy money simply to appease the prioritization of the wealthy."

One tangible effect of the anticipated funding surge is already becoming apparent: as philanthropic funding increasingly concentrates in a handful of specialized fields with limited talent pools, salaries are on the rise. This month, Resolution, an AI safety nonprofit, announced a substantial $160 million grant from Coefficient, marking Coefficient’s largest award of its kind. Resolution explicitly stated in a blog post that this funding, combined with the "enormous influx of philanthropic capital" expected from the AI IPOs, will enable the organization to pay "well above nonprofit and academic norms," further illustrating the transformative impact of this new era of AI philanthropy.