SURVIVAL AND FLOURISHING FUND

Institutional Archetype

THE RECOMMENDATION ENGINE — The Survival and Flourishing Fund is not a foundation. It describes itself as “a website for organizing the collection and evaluation of applications for donations,” and what it publishes is a table: a few rounds a decade, a dozen “Recommenders” reading applications, an algorithm that turns their marginal-utility functions into dollar amounts, and a donor who decides which to implement. The table’s recipients include the organizations the labs hire to test their models: METR, Apollo Research, Epoch AI, FAR.AI, Palisade Research, SecureBio and Apart Research. The file is open because the evaluator layer has several checkbooks and this is one that prints its receipts: every round, every amount, the funder’s name in a column. It is also open because the people who read the applications and the people who receive the grants overlap, in public, on the same pages. This profile scores the position, not the donors and not the Recommenders.

Mandate & Origin

The home page gives the whole self-description: “Survival and Flourishing Fund (SFF) is a website for organizing the collection and evaluation of applications for donations to organizations concerned with the long-term survival and flourishing of sentient life.” It counts its output the same way: “SFF has organized ~$216MM in philanthropic gifts and grants,” with the yearly figures $2MM (2019), $5MM (2020), $20MM (2021), $16MM (2022), $33MM (2023), $41MM (2024), $35MM (2025) and $64MM (2026) (Survival and Flourishing Fund).

Origin, in its own words. “SFF was initially funded in 2019 by a grant of approximately $2 million from the Organizational Grants Program of the Berkeley Existential Risk Initiative (BERI), which in turn was funded by donations from philanthropist Jaan Tallinn. We maintain a DAF at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation under the same name (SFF).” Its advisor Andrew Critch is described there as having “established SFF with the support of Jaan Tallinn, and co-developed the S-Process for philanthropic grant-making,” and as a co-founder of BERI, “where he now volunteers as President” (Survival and Flourishing Fund). The S-Process page credits its design: “co-developed by Andrew Critch, Jaan Tallinn, Oliver Habryka, Kevin Arlin, and Jason Moggridge” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, S-Process).

What SFF is and is not. The FAQ is exact about the legal shape: “SFF is not a grantmaking entity; it publishes recommendations from S-Process Grant Rounds, but it does not distribute any grants.” The distributor is a company: “SFC is a Public Benefit Corporation engaged in philanthropy to support the survival and flourishing of humanity and other sentient beings, with the primary client being Jaan Tallinn. SFC distributes non-dilutive grants to for-profit companies based on recommendations from SFF’s S-Process and Speculation Grants program. SFC also employs the team that administers S-Process grant rounds and other SFF programs, and builds the software tooling that supports them.” And the follow-through is the grantees’ business: “In general, SFF does not track grantee activity after a grant” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, FAQ). The company’s own page names it: “Survival and Flourishing .Com PBC, doing business as Survival and Flourishing Corporation, is a Public Benefit Corporation” (Survival and Flourishing Corp).

The process, in outline. Applicants fill one rolling form. “Speculators,” individuals with delegated budgets, make fast grants: “Each Speculator has a limited budget for approving Speculation Grants (typically $400k),” there are “~40 individuals” serving, and “Currently, all our Speculation Grants are funded by donations from Jaan Tallinn” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, Speculation Grants). “Recommenders” then evaluate the shortlist; the S-Process page says “Funders always have final say over whether to implement our recommendations” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, S-Process). Its own caveat on how the algorithm reads: “the S-Process system is designed to generally favor funding things that at least one Recommender is excited to fund, rather than things that every Recommender is excited to fund” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). A Speculation Grant is deducted from the later recommendation, and a Speculator’s budget is then adjusted by how the round values the grant (“impact futures,” in its term) (Survival and Flourishing Fund, Speculation Grants).

Who runs it. SFF’s home page lists three advisors: Andrew Critch, Eric Rogstad and Ethan Ashkie, the last “President & CEO of Survival and Flourishing Corp (SFC)” (Survival and Flourishing Fund). SFC’s team page lists a head of engineering, a head of operations, a grants coordinator, a business operations manager, engineers, Ruairi Donnelly (special projects) and Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh (advisor); its Board of Directors is Critch and Rogstad (Survival and Flourishing Corp). The CEO’s September 9, 2026 letter states where authority sits: “ultimate authority to make decisions for SFC rests with myself as its CEO, and Andrew Critch and Eric Rogstad as its Owners and Board of Directors” (Ethan Ashkie, Sep 9 2026).

Funding & Backers

Donors. Through SFF-2025 the funder was one person: the 2025 announcement describes “a single round of a grant-recommendation process for Funder Jaan Tallinn” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2025). The 2023 rounds name two Funders, “Jaan Tallinn and Future of Life Institute” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2023-H1); in 2023-H2 the funding is split by source, “Jaan Tallinn via SFF,” “Jaan Tallinn via SFC,” “Jaan Tallinn via Lightspeed Grants” and “Future of Life Institute (FLI): $1.55MM” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2023-H2). From 2026 there are two: the round ran “for Funders Jaan Tallinn and Dustin Moskovitz,” and the table splits the $63.13MM recommended: “$34.10MM Recommended to be funded by Jaan Tallinn” and “$29.03MM Recommended to be funded by Dustin Moskovitz,” with the footnote that “Speculation Grants are funded by Jaan Tallinn” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). See Jaan Tallinn, Dustin Moskovitz and Future of Life Institute. Tallinn’s own page tells applicants where to go: “you should apply to SFF instead of pitching me directly” (Jaan Tallinn, Philanthropy). TIME’s May 2026 entry says his fund “has organized some $150 million to more than 300 projects” (TIME).

The money in 2026 by size. SFF reports a $63.13MM recommendation and $63.64MM “expected to be distributed,” with $9.00MM of it as Matching Pledges that depend on outside donors (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). The Matching Pledge page describes the aim: “diversifying the funding landscape, providing encouragement to other donors who want to give more, and increasing the fundraising robustness and independence of organizations receiving recommendations from the S-Process.” One recipient’s own account of a pledge: MIRI “is running its first fundraiser in six years, targeting $6M. The first $1.6M raised will be matched 1:1 via an SFF grant” (MIRI).

Fiscal sponsors. Individuals cannot receive recommendations directly: “SFF cannot recommend funding to individuals/independent researchers who do not have a fiscal sponsor” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, FAQ). The “Receiving Charity” column shows who stands in. The most frequent is Ashgro, Inc., which says “We offer fiscal sponsorship to AI safety projects, saving them time and allowing them to access more funding,” lists a three-person board (Linda Linsefors, Olga Specjalska, JJ Hepburn) and “Ashgro Inc (EIN: 88-4232889) is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity incorporated in Delaware” (Ashgro). Its filings, as ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer lists them, show $75,031 in revenue for 2022 and $2,104,518 for 2023 (ProPublica, Ashgro Inc). In the SFF tables Ashgro receives for AI Safety Camp, AISafety Info, AISafety.com, Allelon, Timaeus and, in 2024, Apart Research ($294,000) (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2024; Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). Rethink Priorities received for Apollo Research ($251,000, 2024) and for Epoch AI ($600,000, Initiative Committee, 2024); FAR AI, Inc. received for the Safe AI Forum ($580,000, 2024); SecureBio, Inc. receives for SecureDNA (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2024; Survival and Flourishing Fund, Initiative Committee). Apollo’s 2026 line names “Apollo Research PBC” as the receiving charity (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026).

Who was paid: the evaluators, by round. Amounts are the “Total Funding Rec.” or “Amount” figures SFF prints for each organization, in dollars, with its funder column where it prints one. “Spec” is a Speculation Grant already made and counted against the figure; “Match” is a Matching Pledge, paid only if the recipient raises outside money. SFF-2023-H2 prints separate columns for Lightspeed Grants (LSG), SFF and SFC.

Sources for the table: SFF-2022-H1, SFF-2022-H2, SFF-2023-H1, SFF-2023-H2, SFF-2024, Initiative Committee, SFF-2025, SFF-2026.

By the table’s own figures, the six evaluators SFF-2026 lists as METR, Palisade, SecureBio, FAR AI, Epoch AI and Apollo total $6,806,000 of the $63.13MM recommended, about 11 percent. No frontier lab, and no government body, appears as a recipient in the 2025 or 2026 tables. Some recipients disclose the money on their own pages: METR’s about page lists “recommendations by the Survival and Flourishing Fund” among its supporters (METR); Epoch AI’s transparency page lists “Survival & Flourishing Fund,” “General Support,” May 2026, “$195,000 USD,” and Jaan Tallinn, January 2025, “$600,000 USD DAF donation” (Epoch AI); SecureBio’s GPT-6 Astra assessment says “We are primarily funded by Coefficient Giving, the Survival and Flourishing Fund, and Sentinel Bio” (SecureBio). The 2024 Initiative Committee also made grants without applications, among them $1,000,000 to the Center for AI Safety and $1,000,000 to its Action Fund (Survival and Flourishing Fund, Initiative Committee).

Institutional Voice & Intent

SFF’s public register is the operations announcement: how a round works, what it expects to distribute, who is hiring.

• SFF-2026 announcement: “In 2026, twelve people across three tracks participated as “Recommenders” (grant evaluators) in a single round of a grant-recommendation process for Funders Jaan Tallinn and Dustin Moskovitz” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026).
• On the choice of Recommenders: “SFF grant recommendations are made by a group of independent assessors whose membership changes regularly. The philanthropic priorities of SFF’s Funders play a guiding role” (Survival and Flourishing Fund).
• The CEO’s September 9, 2026 letter, on the year: “In 2026, the world of AI got more chaotic, and the S-Process got more strained.” On what the operator will not facilitate: “we determined that SFC does not want to work with people who spread messages advocating for violence, and does not want to recommend funding to activities when that would have the foreseeable effect of inflaming and coarsening public AI discourse.” On the consequence: “some applications which SFF Evaluators recommended funding for were not facilitated by SFC” (Ethan Ashkie, Sep 9 2026).
• The same letter on its own role: “SFC has the basic autonomy to decide what applications and grants we are willing to process,” and “When someone receives a grant recommended by SFF, SFC bears some responsibility for the impact of whatever actions they take” (Ethan Ashkie, Sep 9 2026).
• The Advisory Organizations Panel page: “The Advisory Organizations Panel was formed in 2026 by inviting a set of trusted organizations that SFC has recommended funding to or worked with in the past,” and “doesn’t have any decision-making power.” It adds: “In early communications to Speculators and Recommenders, the Advisory Organizations Panel was depicted as more of a decision-making body that voted on proposed grants, and could approve or veto them. This was a miscommunication” (Survival and Flourishing Corp, Advisory Organizations Panel).

Stated intent: Organize applications and evaluations so that donors can delegate grant decisions to trusted advisors, and “direct funding to safe, high-upside, net-positive interventions, while directing it away from risky, high-downside, net-negative interventions” (Ethan Ashkie, Sep 9 2026).

Observed intent: A repeat-player allocation machine whose recipients are mostly organizations in the AI-risk field, whose Recommenders are mostly drawn from the same field, and whose operator keeps a final say that the 2026 letter says it used.

Gap: The table is more open than most funders’: every amount, every funder column, the Recommenders who chose to be named, the Speculators who chose to be named. What it does not show is any rule for the overlap between Recommenders and recipients. The pages cited do not state a conflict-of-interest rule for Recommenders; the Speculation Grants page describes recusal only for settling a Speculator’s own impact future, “If Alice is also serving as a grant Recommender for the S-Process itself, she is “recused” in that her values are purged from the system during the evaluation of her future certificate” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, Speculation Grants). The gap is structural: the people who read the applications, the organizations that receive the money and the panel that advises on which grants proceed share names and seats, and the donors’ own pages say so.

Interest: SFF does not describe its operating choices as self-interest, and the record does not say they are. What each position pays the operator, its recipients or others is set out from its own pages; no fee to SFF is documented, and SFC states that it employs the administering team and that its primary client is Jaan Tallinn.

• Independent supervisors for lab-to-lab inspections. Position, in SFC’s words: it “is offering a prize of $5MM–$20MM for initiating “Independently Supervised Peer-Assisted” (ISPA) inspections between frontier AI labs,” and “Jaan Tallinn will contribute a minimum of $5MM to the prize” (Survival and Flourishing Corp, ISPA Inspection Prize; Survival and Flourishing Fund). What it pays: the prize “will be paid out to a combination of natural persons and institutions who initiate, coordinate, and supervise the inspection(s),” where the supervisor “should possess expertise in AI auditing”; the page says “Ideally, all of Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and xAI should be tasked as Peer Assistants” who serve “as a contractor enlisted by the Independent Supervisor.” The organizations that fit “AI auditing expertise” include several this fund pays every round; the page names no supervisor. Best case, the page’s own: “Frontier AI labs have some incentives to protect their corporate interests and missions from pre-deployment risks, but are not perfectly aligned with public safety,” and governments’ drawback is “Authoritarianism.” Who else gains: the four named labs, which would hold contractor roles in each other’s inspections, and any non-governmental auditor that qualifies.
• A recommendation process in which grantees advise on grants. Position, in SFC’s words: “For some proposed grants there is live debate about the balance of potential positive and negative impacts,” and “it’s helpful for SFC to get input from trusted outside organizations, especially those who are active in the same space that the grant would be funding” (Survival and Flourishing Corp, Advisory Organizations Panel). What it pays: the panel’s named members are the Center for AI Safety, the Center for Human-Compatible AI, FAR AI and the Foundation for American Innovation; the first and third are recipients in the 2026 table ($492,000 and $875,000). Best case, SFC’s: “As part of its basic autonomy to act or not act, SFC can object to proposed grants and decline to facilitate them,” and the panel’s counsel is non-binding. Who else gains: SFC itself, which takes counsel from organizations “active in the same space” without delegating the decision; the page says it does not share any organization’s individual responses “with anyone outside of SFC staff and Funders.”
• Matching Pledges. Position, SFF’s: the program exists for “diversifying the funding landscape” and “increasing the fundraising robustness and independence of organizations receiving recommendations.” What it pays: METR’s $1,426,000 of its 2026 $2,201,000 and Palisade’s $928,000 of its 2025 $1,133,000 are Matching Pledges, so those organizations collect only by raising outside money, which routes other donors’ money to the same recipients at the rate printed beside each pledge (0.25x to 2x). Best case, SFF’s: reducing a recipient’s dependence on one donor. Who else gains: the other donors, whose gifts are matched, and Coefficient Giving, whose grantees tell it they want “only a minority of their funding” to come from a single source (Coefficient Giving, Oct 2 2025; Open Philanthropy (Coefficient Giving)).

Interest is a documented fact about each position, not a claim about motive, and not a verdict that the argument is wrong. Each best case is stated at the strength its author states it.

Position in the Apparatus

• Who reads the applications. The 2026 announcement names ten of twelve Recommenders: Benjamin Weinstein-Raun, Connor Leahy, Eli Dourado, Rob Miles, Scott Alexander and Zach Stein-Perlman on the Main Track; Glen Weyl and Irene Solaiman on the Fairness Track; Robin Hanson and Zvi Mowshowitz on the Freedom Track (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). The 2025 round names Malo Bourgon, Nate Soares, Nathan Labenz and Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh (Main), Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Bálint Gyevnár and Irene Solaiman (Fairness), Nell Watson and Zvi Mowshowitz (Freedom) (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2025). The 2023-H1 round names Olle Häggström, Steve Omohundro and Daniel Bendisi Kokotajlo (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2023-H1).
• A Recommender whose employer is a recipient. Palisade Research’s team page says its Head of Research, Benjamin Weinstein-Raun, “is acting director of AI Impacts,” and its Head of Strategy, Eli Tyre, “supports grantmaking at Jaan Tallinn’s Survival and Flourishing Fund” (Palisade Research). In SFF-2026 Weinstein-Raun is a Main Track Recommender, Palisade is recommended $1,842,000, and AI Impacts $351,000 ($112,000 from Tallinn and $239,000 from Moskovitz) (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). The table prints track totals, not individual Recommenders’ inputs, and states no recusal.
• A Recommender who is also the operator’s advisor. Ó hÉigeartaigh was a 2025 Main Track Recommender, and SFC’s team page lists him as “Advisor”: “At SFC, Seán advises on AI policy and strategy, and research and philanthropic initiatives” (Survival and Flourishing Corp).
• A Recommender who received an Initiative Committee gift. Zvi Mowshowitz is a Recommender in 2024, 2025 and 2026 and is listed among the Speculators; the Initiative Committee’s 2024 list carries “Zvi Mowshowitz” with $200,000 as an “Unconditional gift” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, Initiative Committee; Survival and Flourishing Fund, Speculation Grants). Tallinn’s page points applicants to Mowshowitz’s reports on “how the process looks like from inside” (Jaan Tallinn, Philanthropy).
• The operator’s staff on recipients’ boards. SFC’s team page says Ruairi Donnelly “is also the President of Macroscopic Ventures, a philanthropic grantmaking organization focused on safeguarding the long-term future, and serves on the board of the Center for AI Safety” (Survival and Flourishing Corp). Tallinn’s own bios page says “Jaan serves on the Board of the Center for AI Safety” (Jaan Tallinn, bios). The Center for AI Safety is a recipient in every round from 2023-H1 and a member of the Advisory Organizations Panel.
• An operator’s director goes to a lab. SFF’s home page says of Rogstad, an SFC director and owner, “In 2026, he will join the Anthropic Fellows Program for AI Safety Research” (Survival and Flourishing Fund). See Anthropic.
• The sibling process. SFF-2023-H2 incorporated another process’s recommendations, “$9.62MM in grants organized by Lightspeed Grants, which Funder Jaan Tallinn requested to incorporate in our announcement” (Survival and Flourishing Fund). In 2025 SFF shared its applications with the Effective Institutions Project, which “anticipates recommending $5–15 million in grants to SFF applicants” (Survival and Flourishing Fund, Application Sharing).
• Next to the larger checkbook. Open Philanthropy (Coefficient Giving) wrote in September 2026 that it committed “$351 million” to technical AI safety, security and fieldbuilding in 2025 (Coefficient Giving, Emily Oehlsen, Sep 9 2026); SFF’s 2025 round, across all subjects, expected to distribute $34.92MM. Schmidt Sciences appears beside SFF on the funder lists of METR and Epoch. The evaluator-by-evaluator overlap is set out in Evaluator Alliances and The AI Evaluators.

Actions & Leadership Choices

CONDUCT: STRUCTURAL — ONE DONOR’S GRANT LIST FOR THE EVALUATORS, WITH THE VETO AT THE OPERATOR. No wrongdoing is alleged. The structural point is the loop: the grants reach most of the evaluator layer; the Recommenders who decide the amounts are drawn from the same field and are named in the tables, with employers and board seats listed by the recipients and the operator themselves; and the operator, which the CEO says holds final authority, did not facilitate some of what the Recommenders chose. The funders’ own best case is that a process that publishes every receipt, rotates its Recommenders and discloses its split is the more accountable of the available designs.

Moskovitz joins. For 2025 the announcement says “Funder Jaan Tallinn”; for 2026 it says “Funders Jaan Tallinn and Dustin Moskovitz,” with Moskovitz at $29.03MM of $63.13MM and the 2026 round the largest on the home page’s chart ($64MM against $35MM in 2025). The evaluator lines in the 2026 table are mostly his: $542,000 of Epoch’s $646,000, $771,000 of FAR.AI’s $875,000, $1,360,000 of Palisade’s $1,842,000, $896,000 of SecureBio’s $927,000 and $306,000 of Apollo’s $315,000; the METR line prints Tallinn as the funder (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026). Moskovitz is also the principal donor behind Open Philanthropy (Coefficient Giving), which funds the same evaluators on its own listing.

The operator exercises a veto and says so. The CEO’s letter says the 2026 process “created confusion and uncertainty, backlash from some Evaluators, delays in grant decisions, and ultimately meant that some applications which SFF Evaluators recommended funding for were not facilitated by SFC,” and the Advisory Organizations Panel page corrects an earlier impression that the panel could “approve or veto” grants (Ethan Ashkie, Sep 9 2026; Survival and Flourishing Corp, Advisory Organizations Panel). The letter does not name the applications or the recipients.

A dissent column. The tables mark “controversial” recommendations, those “that one or more Recommenders wished to publicly disendorse”; the 2026 table marks the Center for AI Safety row with the asterisk (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026).

A lab-facing prize. The ISPA Inspection Prize ($5MM to $20MM) puts the operator in the position of buying a specific institutional outcome, lab-to-lab inspections under an independent supervisor, rather than waiting for applications (Survival and Flourishing Corp, ISPA Inspection Prize).

Alliance Map

These run at the same time. One recommendation process is operated by a company that counts one donor as its primary client, takes in a second donor in 2026, pays most of the independent evaluators the labs cite, seats its Recommenders from the same field, lists a recipient’s board member on its own staff, and consults a panel on which two recipients sit while holding a veto its CEO says it used. SFF and SFC disclose each of those ties themselves, or through the recipients’ own pages. The overlap is the finding.

Reach Assessment

Institutional: About $216MM organized since 2019, $63.64MM expected from the 2026 round, a dozen Recommenders per round, about forty Speculators, and a recommendation list that includes METR, Apollo, Epoch, FAR.AI, Palisade, SecureBio and Apart, among others. Memetic: Its tables are where the field reads who is funded and by whom; recipients cite its money on their funding pages and a recipient’s own fundraiser advertises a match “via an SFF grant.”

Civilizational: For scale, Coefficient Giving says its technical AI safety, security and fieldbuilding commitments were $351 million in 2025 and are on track for over $1 billion in 2026, against SFF’s $34.92MM expected distribution in 2025 and $63.64MM in 2026 across all its subjects (Coefficient Giving, Emily Oehlsen, Sep 9 2026; Survival and Flourishing Fund). SFF is the smaller allocator.

Score note. Attack 6, defense 8 and hp 6 on first-hand receipts: SFF-2026’s $63.13MM table and the evaluator lines in it, the home page’s yearly totals, the FAQ’s statement that SFF distributes nothing, the S-Process page’s statement that Funders have the final say, and the CEO’s statement of where authority rests. Peers on the same values: Schmidt Sciences (6/8/7, hazard 70), which is a family foundation with a filed balance sheet where SFF has a donor-advised fund and an operator, and Open Philanthropy (Coefficient Giving) (8/8/9, hazard 80), which commits several times SFF’s volume to the same layer; GovAI (7/8/7, hazard 76) reaches into government where SFF reaches no agency. The two persons behind it score higher on their own money, Jaan Tallinn (7/10/9, hazard 84) and Dustin Moskovitz (8/10/9, hazard 88), because the process depends on their continued gifts. Hazard 67 sits below Schmidt Sciences: smaller entrenchment, same reach and insulation.

Score basis. Atk 6 is reach: the 2026 table’s $63.13MM and its lines for METR ($2,201,000), Palisade ($1,842,000), SecureBio ($927,000), FAR AI ($875,000), Epoch ($646,000) and Apollo ($315,000), set beside the home page’s “~$216MM” since 2019, mean a measurable share of the evaluators’ outside money is allocated through this process; the FAQ says it “does not distribute any grants” and nothing obliges a lab or an agency to use a grantee’s output, which is why reach is 6 and not 7 (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026; Survival and Flourishing Fund, FAQ). Def 8 is funding insulation: the table prints a funder column, Tallinn $34.10MM and Moskovitz $29.03MM in 2026, and no lab or agency appears as a funder or a recipient, while one donor funded every earlier round and the operator’s CEO says final authority rests with himself and two owners (Survival and Flourishing Fund, SFF-2026; Ethan Ashkie, Sep 9 2026). Hp 6 is entrenchment: eight years of rounds, a PBC with engineers on $250,000 to $350,000 salaries and matching pledges due as late as September 30, 2027 keep it in place, but “Funders always have final say” and the Funders can stop at will (Survival and Flourishing Fund, S-Process; Survival and Flourishing Fund).

Sources: Survival and Flourishing Fund; SFF FAQ; SFF S-Process; SFF Speculation Grants; SFF Initiative Committee; SFF Advisory Organizations Panel; SFF Application Sharing; SFF-2022-H1; SFF-2022-H2; SFF-2023-H1; SFF-2023-H2; SFF-2024; SFF-2025; SFF-2026; Survival and Flourishing Corp; SFC, Update from the CEO (Sep 9 2026); SFC, ISPA Inspection Prize; Ashgro; ProPublica, Ashgro Inc; METR; Epoch AI, Transparency; SecureBio, GPT-6 Astra assessment; Palisade Research; MIRI, 2025 Fundraiser; Jaan Tallinn, Philanthropy; Jaan Tallinn, bios; TIME, TIME100 Philanthropy: Jaan Tallinn; Anthropic, Anthropic raises $124 million; Coefficient Giving, Emily Oehlsen (Sep 9 2026)