Rethink Priorities

What it reported doing in 2024

AI Policy and Strategy: In 2024, Rethink Priorities' (RP's) AI work was conducted by the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy (IAPS). A brief overview of IAPS' four main workstreams and 2024 accomplishments follows: (1) Compute policy work aims to explore novel interventions and strategic considerations for managing access to massive AI compute resources. In 2024, IAPS work on this area included publishing a landmark paper with the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) focused on using on-chip governance mechanisms to manage national security risks from AI and advanced computing, working on a forthcoming (published in 2025) report on location verification for advanced AI chips, and publishing a report analyzing the potential impact of high-end consumer GPUs on the efficacy of US export controls on AI chips. The work has received significant interest from US policymakers. (2) Frontier Security work aims to identify concrete interventions to address AI-related threats to national defense and security and protect innovation. Accomplishments in 2024 include publications analyzing advanced AI companies' RSPs (responsible scaling plans) and providing recommendations, a systematic analysis of regulatory precedents from all federal agencies, an early warning system for dual-use capabilities which lays out info-sharing paths between AI companies, government, and critical defenders, publications examining safety R&D efforts by advanced AI labs and the role the UK government can play in leading AI assurance, multiple RFI responses on key topics regarding AI, and upcoming reports (published in 2025) on differential access for cybersecurity capabilities, and on promising directions in AI reliability R&D. (3) International Strategy work aims to study trends in international coordination and competition around advanced AI. In 2024, published research included advice on topics for AI Track IIs that minimize risks of leaking sensitive information, an analysis of the first wave of AI safety institutes and key questions for the international network of these institutes, as well as analysis of China including counterparts to AI safety institutes and a comparison of US and China's approaches to governing advanced AI. (4) IAPS programs department ran an AI policy fellowship with 13 fellows, who now hold relevant positions in advanced AI labs, US and UK government, and think tanks.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
• Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
• Fundraising efficiency: $31.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
  • Compensation committee: Pass
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
• Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 59.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 41.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 40.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings