The Center for Humane Technology is cutting roughly half its non-founder staff as it shifts to founder-led work and private coordination.
The Center for Humane Technology is cutting about half its non-founder staff and shifting toward founder-led projects. The move follows a string of courtroom wins against social platforms and centers on public education, targeted briefings, and private coordination led by the founders.
The pivot suggests a push to translate advocacy into direct influence on policy, with followers watching to see if this approach yields tangible changes in AI regulation.
What happens next: the center has not detailed a new program slate or timeline, but expects ongoing founder-led activities. If you care about AI safety, look for upcoming briefings or public education campaigns from the founders and their partners.
The Center for Humane Technology is cutting about half of its non-founder staff and will shift its operations toward founder-led projects. The move comes after the nonprofit had scored a string of courtroom victories against social media platforms by arguing they were designed to keep users engaged. In a recent board decision, the center announced it would end policy research and litigation work to devote resources to public education, targeted briefings, and private coordination under its founders.
The organization was co-founded by Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin, and has been a prominent voice in the AI safety and online safety debates. As staffers describe it, the switch reflects a strategic pull toward leveraging the founders’ public visibility to influence decisionmakers more directly, rather than maintaining a broader advocacy and policy research footprint.
The board’s chair, Premal Shah, framed the pivot this way: “This moment of accelerated AI risk demands we focus on one strategy, and we have chosen to focus on what we have always done best so that we can meet the moment.” The center did not specify how many layoffs occurred, nor which exact roles were eliminated, but former workers say nine departures occurred among the non-founder ranks.
Internally, employees had debated the organization’s direction for years. Some staffers described a running tension between chasing consumer-focused advocacy, backing lawmakers and influencing tech companies, and the founders’ highly visible stance on AI risk. The board’s decision appears to settle that debate in favor of founder-led activities that can be deployed quickly to broad audiences and influential decisionmakers.
The shift happens as AI risk and responsibility concerns grow louder in policy circles. Harris has become a familiar name in coverage about AI safety and digital well-being, arguing that the tech industry must take stronger action to curb risks. While the nonprofit has achieved courtroom wins and helped organize hearings, its leadership says more direct, founder-driven outreach may be needed to translate those wins into concrete policy changes.
The center will discontinue its litigation support and policy research functions, and it will reduce ongoing programs tied to converting its advocacy into sustained legal or policy work. Instead, the focus will turn to activities led by the founders, public education campaigns, briefings for decisionmakers, and private coordination with organizations looking to shape AI policy. The board did not provide a precise timeline for the transition or detail future funding needs.
For people following AI policy, this signals a shift from structured policy research toward more direct messaging and influence campaigns. It could mean faster, more visible statements from Harris and his collaborators, but potentially fewer formal, long-running policy papers or litigation efforts. Donors and supporters may see a change in how resources are allocated, with more emphasis on high-profile outreach rather than broad, formal research programs.
The center has not announced a new public program slate, but the board’s message points to continued work on public education and targeted engagements. If you care about AI safety, the next steps likely involve watching how the founders frame policy issues in public forums, briefings with lawmakers, and collaborations with other advocacy groups.
Yes, but the emphasis is shifting to founder-led public education and private coordination rather than formal policy research and lawsuits.
The organization says about half of its non-founder staff left, including executives, but exact numbers and roles were not disclosed.
Follow updates from the founders, participate in public education efforts when they arise, and consider supporting organizations that align with your AI safety priorities.
The Center for Humane Technology is trimming its non-founder staff and moving toward founder-led initiatives, focusing on public education, briefings, and private coordination to influence AI policy. The board says this focuses resources where they are most needed in a moment of rising AI risk.
Expect more coordinated public messaging from the founders and fewer formal policy papers or lawsuits. The exact timetable and funding implications will emerge as the center rolls out its new plan.
Keep an eye on whether the founder-led approach translates into measurable policy action or if supporters push for a broader research footprint to balance advocacy with analysis.
The board chair framed the move as focusing on one strategy to meet the moment; internal discussions and the scope of layoffs were described by former staffers.
You're reading the quick version.
A UPS shipment carrying sensitive F-35 cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door components was allegedly rerouted through Hong Kong after an employee missed an ITAR alert, raising questions about secure handling of military tech.
Raheim Hamilton, co-creator of Empire Market, gets 40-year prison term for running a platform that facilitated hundreds of millions in illegal drug sales and other crimes.
In Kakuma, refugees use AI tools to research and translate, but pay is inconsistent and transparency is uneven. Here’s what it means for ordinary workers.
