@tyler_m_john - I think the alternative is that people are likely to do low
Tyler John✓@tyler_m_john
One way that I sense my grantmaking strategy is different from others in the AI safety space is that I strongly believe in pre-seed. If someone's ideas aren't great but it's early and they're headed in an interesting direction and have a good track record, they should be funded.
Tyler John✓@tyler_m_john
I know other funders do things like scoped career transitions and specific research fellowships and stuff, but I find that often the best way to do a career transition is to just try things until your plan comes together. As a funder you can decide whether to double down later.
Read 2 more tweets
Tyler John✓@tyler_m_john
Some funders might do less pre-seed to reduce risk surface area, but my suspicion is that you basically never incur risk during pre-seed, and if you think the project is high risk you can just pass over it at the seed round.
Tyler John✓@tyler_m_john
Limited data here, only been on the grantee side once (and found it brutal!), ymmv
Tyler John✓@tyler_m_john
2026-04-20I think the alternative is that people are likely to do low risk, cookie cutter projects, or that funding disproportionately goes towards people who can take off 6 months and make their ideas really clear, when that isn't the most important founder profile.