Why are OpenAI and apparently NVIDIA employees good at collectively mobilising to get their CEO back, but Anthropic employees not good at collectively mobilising to stop development of a technology they believe could kill 8 billion people?

If we want EA to be a decentralised movement, it’s worth looking at how other movements/structures move money from the centre to national, regional, and local orgs. Here are a few comparisons. In the big federations, money flows up. Amnesty’s national sections sent just over a third of what they raised to the international budget in 2013. Greenpeace works in a similar way. Because the sections fund the centre, they also have a formal say in how it’s run.  EA works the other way round. Most of the movement building money comes from one funder, Coefficient Giving, and passes through CEA. Three examples have a similar shape (it's hard to find something perfectly analogous to EA): * The Open Wing Alliance, run by The Humane League, has the same funder. In January 2025 Coefficient Giving (then Open Philanthropy) gave THL $10m in general support, including for the OWA. In 2026 the OWA gave about $1.9m to 28 member organisations in 24 countries. It also has staff in each region to support those members. * ClimateWorks has more funders, but regranting is its main job. In 2024 it paid out $229.8m in grants, compared with about $87m in salaries and other costs. That’s roughly 72% of its spending. * Wikimedia also moves money down, but from millions of small donors rather than one funder. Since 2012, affiliates have mostly been funded through grants from the Wikimedia Foundation rather than by fundraising in their own countries. By 2019 that came to roughly 10% of the Foundation’s budget. For years the allocation was decided by volunteer committees rather than by staff alone. At CEA, operational spending in 2025 was $21.8m, Claude tells me that Community Building Grant costs fell 22% that year. I don’t know what share of CEA’s budget goes to local and national orgs, and I couldn’t find a published figure. In 2026 the CBG portfolio covers 11 orgs and is closed to new applicants.

It’s been a busy week interviewing hiring managers at AI Safety organizations for my SPAR project, to fully understand the bottlenecks that affected both hiring teams and candidates.  I published a Playbook v0.1 of my learnings last week (would love some feedback!) , as I continue to work towards publishing a final Playbook to help hiring teams to improve their hiring processes.  Additionally, I am so appreciative for all the warm introductions that I’m receiving - this community really supports each other.  These hiring bottlenecks continue to be: 1. Hiring teams are constrained large number of applications, unable to effectively (and efficiently) identify strong skilled candidates 2. Candidates continue to become more burnt out with repeated rejections and not understanding how they should demonstrate ideal AI Safety context and alignment for hiring teams to take the risk in hiring them.  3. And the number of job openings at AI Safety organizations is starting to shift from researchers to specialized roles that run the business ( Legal Council roles are currently the hottest - and hardest - to fill).  Demonstrating that some organizations are ramping up their teams and operations.  Here’s some interesting things I learned in my calls with hiring managers this week: * Grantmakers are not recognizing first hand if newly funded AI Safety organizations are stalling in being able to hire their first specialist hires (legal, finance and people leads), however, they do see this may be a current problem. * Most new AI Safety organizations are struggling with lack of product market fit, team issues and motivation drop as the majority of reasons why new AI Safety organizations struggle to raise more funding. * Hiring teams are struggling with candidates who don’t understand epistemics (there are several articles written in depth on the Forum about this topic) and not understanding what the community values are. How do they validate that candidates are aligned to