· Public charity
Future of Life Institute
To support the future of life foundation by steering transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from extreme large-scale risks.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 12 grants below total $6,285,957 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $7,457,618 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,171,661 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k4 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $516k
- $250k+5 grants · $5.7M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $2,470,096 |
| INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SAFE AND ETHICAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INC | $1,500,000 |
| FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS | $750,000 |
| CAF AMERICA | $619,861 |
| BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE | $365,000 |
| FORESIGHT INSTITUTE | $247,000 |
| WISE ANCESTORS | $169,000 |
| LONGVIEW PHILANTROPHY USA INC | $100,000 |
| FUTURE COALITION | $25,000 |
| METAGOV | $15,000 |
| LEGAL PRIORITIES INC | $15,000 |
| EFFCT | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY24–24, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $1.0M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions, $977k to organizations and $70k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: RFP AWARD - RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF AI ON POVERTY, HEALTH, ENERGY · ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS ON THE HUMANITARIAN IMPACT OF AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS
Stated purpose: RFP AWARD - RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF AI ON POVERTY, HEALTH, ENERGY · RFP AWARD - RESEARCH INTO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INSTITUTION DESIGN · RESEARCH INTO THE CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WAR
Stated purpose: RFP AWARD - RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF AI ON POVERTY, HEALTH, ENERGY · RESEARCH REPORT ON GPAI CODE OF PRACTICE · SUPERINTELLIGENCE IMAGINED AWARD
Stated purpose: RFP AWARD - RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF AI ON POVERTY, HEALTH, ENERGY
Stated purpose: SUPERINTELLIGENCE IMAGINED AWARD
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 11% of Future of Life Institute’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 5% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.0M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- LFLIGHTCONE FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2023 · $57M · revenue -94% · 31% of their budget
- ITIMPROVE THE NEWS FOUNDATION3× · 2021–2023 · $8.3M · revenue +28% · 100% of their budget
- BSBIOCOMPLEXITY SURVIVAL ALLIANCE2× · 2022–2024 · $1.3M · revenue -28% · 100% of their budget
Funded once
- FOFUTURE OF LIFE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $25M · 100% of their budget
- NINON-VIOLENCE INTERNATIONALgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $279k · revenue +104%
- GVGOOD VENTURES FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $162k · revenue +314%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To drive global coordination that minimizes extreme AI risks and ensures the benefits of AI are shared by all. SAIF fosters responsible governance to reduce catastrophic risks through shared understanding and collaboration among key global…
Working with our world-class network of innovators, business and industry leaders, and policy experts, we accelerate the innovation of climate technologies at every stage - from discovery to development to deployment.
The organization provides public education on artificial intelligence.
to reduce societal-scale risks associated with artificial intelligence AI by advancing safety research, building the field of AI safety researchers, and promoting safety standards.
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
OpenAIs mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
Capri usa is a nongovernmental, nonpartisan, international organization founded in 2024 to enhance global resilience and promote innovative policy by drawing on the experience of the asia-pacific region through interdisciplinary public…
None
The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.
The world future society works to improve decision-making about the future by empowering futurists, fostering networks and advancing knowledge and action on future critical issues.
Convergence Analysis mission is to improve the long-term prospects of human civilization to survive and thrive. Its specific objectives and purposes shall be: (1) To analyze existing academic research and conduct interdisciplinary basic…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Federation of American Scientists and the most unlike its peers is Good Ventures Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 12 years old; the field is 9. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 35% startups (under 5 years old) — 30% of your grantees by number, and just 76% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 20% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 25 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds LIGHTCONE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FUTURE OF LIFE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds IMPROVE THE NEWS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SAFE AND ETHICAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INC ↗
- Who funds BIOCOMPLEXITY SURVIVAL ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA ↗
- Who funds FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS ↗
- Who funds BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds NON-VIOLENCE INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds The Foresight Institute ↗
- Who funds THE FUTURE SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds GOOD VENTURES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Pax Christi Fund for Peace ↗
- Who funds LONGVIEW PHILANTHROPY USA INC ↗
- Who funds Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc ↗
- Who funds MARCH ON ↗
- Who funds METAGOV INC ↗
- Who funds LEGAL PRIORITIES INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR APPLIED RATIONALITY ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Founders Pledge Inc · Good Ventures Foundation · Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Future of Life Institute funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc — 1% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Future of Life Institute?
Find your warmest path to Future of Life Institute through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.