Skip to content

· Public charity

The Foresight Institute

The Foresight Institute works to advance science and technology for the benefit of life through grants, events, prizes, and fellowships.

$1.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$145k
Largest
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Science & Tech$1.7MHealth$206kPublic Benefit$20kReligion$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $778,845, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,468,345 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $689,500 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $749k
$70,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$8.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Empiriqal Inc$145,419
FAR AI Inc$107,110
University of Pennsylvania$100,000
Midfield Scurity LLC$90,000
Convergence Analysis$77,116
MATS Research Inc$70,000
Ashgro Inc$59,200
Neurotrust LLC$50,000
Institute for Advanced Consc$50,000
Open Collective Foundation$20,000
Church of Jesus Christ-Latter$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Empiriqal Inc: $145k → 10%University of Pennsylvania: $100k → 22%Midfield Scurity LLC: $90k → 8%MATS Research Inc: $70k → 10%Plurality Institute: $10k → 10%FAR AI Inc: $107k → 11%Convergence Analysis: $77k → 12%Institute for Advanced Consc: $50k → 14%The Alliance for Longevity: $6k → 14%Transformative Futures Fore: $44k → 16%Ashgro Inc: $59k → 10%AI Objectives Institute: $630k → 14%Open Collective Foundation: $20k → 14%Neurotrust LLC: $50k → 14%Agentic Future Foundation: $60k → 14%AI Objectives Institute: $437k → 14%AI Objectives Institute: $35k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Grants abroad, by region: $596k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions, $546k to organizations and $50k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

United Kingdom$290k · 49% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Research Grant

Switzerland$136k · 23% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Research grants

Cyprus$70k · 12% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Research Grant

Australia$50k · 8% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Research grant

Germany$50k · 8% · 2 people

Stated purpose: Award & Doctoral grant

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s 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.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
OpenAI Foundation fka OpenAI Inc

OpenAIs mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.

Science & Tech
2
Clarity Ai Research Inc

Transluce is an independent research lab that builds open, scalable technology for understanding ai systems and steering them in the public interest.

Science & Tech
3
Berkeley Existential Risk Initiative

To improve human civilizations long-term prospects for survival and flourishing. currently, our main strategy is collaborating with university research groups working to reduce existential risk, by providing them with free services and…

Public Safety & Disaster
4
Centre for the Governance of Ai Inc

Govai is organized to shape the lasting impact of artificial intelligence on the world, by supporting informed and effective decision-making by private and public institutions regarding the development and deployment of artificial…

Public Benefit
5
Center for Ai Safety Inc

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.

Science & Tech
6
Safe Artificial Intelligence Forum Institute

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…

—
7
Collective Intelligence Project Inc

Our mission is to direct technological development towards the collective good.

Science & Tech
8
Palisade Research

Our mission is to research and communicate the capabilities and risks posed by advanced artificial intelligence systems. our current work focuses on cybersecurity, deception, and persuasion. we aim to communicate the state of these…

Science & Tech
9
Future Tech Insights Inc

The organization provides public education on artificial intelligence.

Public Benefit
10
Speculative Technologies Inc

Speculative technologies is a nonprofit research organization that runs coordinated research programs to unlock big-if-true technologies that are too speculative to be a startup but are too coordination- or engineering-heavy for academia…

Science & Tech
11
Ethical Ai Governance Group Inc

The Ethical AI Governance Group was formed by a group of leading venture capital investors enterprise executives and startup entrepreneurs. We understand the risks AI systems can pose to privacy accountability and transparency and are…

Education
12
Foundation for Applied Bio Linguistic Exploration

The Foundation for Applied Bio Linguistic Exploration (Fable) is a nonprofit exploring the intersection of narrative and technology, examining their combined impact on storytelling, the human condition, and neuroscience. We collaborate…

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Far Ai Inc; the most unlike its peers is Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 16 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Ai Objectives Institute: $1,101,313 · Science & TechAi Objectives InstituteFAR AI INC: $107,110 · Science & TechFAR AI INCMATS RESEARCH INC: $70,000 · Science & TechMATS RESEARCH INC+1 more: $10,000 · Science & TechEmpiriqal Inc: $145,419 · OtherEmpiriqal IncMidfield Scurity LLC: $90,000 · OtherMidfield Scurity LLCAgentic Future Foundation: $60,000 · OtherAgentic Future Foundat…Neurotrust LLC: $50,000 · OtherNeurotrust LLCIndividual grant recipient: $43,909 · OtherIndividual grant recip…+2 more: $16,040 · OtherTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $100,000 · EducationTRUSTEES O…CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS: $77,116 · EducationCONVERGENC…ASHGRO INC: $59,200 · PhilanthropyOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyINSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES INC: $50,000 · Health
Science & Tech$1,288,423Other$405,368Education$177,116Philanthropy$79,200Health$50,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAi Objectives Institute: $1,101,313 over 3y, 100% of budgetFAR AI INC: $107,110 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONVERGENCE ANALYSIS: $77,116 over 1y, 8.0% of budgetMATS RESEARCH INC: $70,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetASHGRO INC: $59,200 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES INC: $50,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPLURALITY INSTITUTE: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Founders Pledge IncNY17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Founders Pledge Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Foresight Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Foresight Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Foresight Institute?

    Find your warmest path to The Foresight 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Foresight Institute’s filings →

    More from the funding graph