LessWrong AI
2026-10-04 04:14 UTC
By Patryk Wielopolski
USR-0152-20261004-community-fo-46eb3048
MATS × CG Pitch Week: What Happened, What We Learned
TL;DR In Q2 2026, we ran the first MATS x Coefficient Giving (CG) Pitch Week: a four-week program designed to take fellowship researchers from an early idea to a funding decision. The program was a joint effort between MATS , CG , Constellation , and Catalyze Impact . 38 expressions of interest; all were invited to a two-week Exploration Sprint. 17 teams applied and 15 teams pitched. $4.3M was awarded across six grants (47% of teams that pitched) with five org-founding grants and two independent research grants. Funding outcomes were not strongly correlated with the founder characteristics we could observe. What distinguished successful pitches was the maturity and evaluability of the idea: a named first user, a concrete first deliverable, a bounded scope, evidence of technical feasibility, and a legible reason the work required a new organization. Why we ran this, and why we're writing it up We believe that supporting founders could be unusually valuable. AI safety orgs founded by MATS alumni, such as Apollo and Timaeus , likely account for an outsized share of MATS’s impact. New organizations can also act as capacity multipliers, especially now that funding is outstripping the supply of organizations ready to absorb it , making founder support one of our highest-leverage activities. At the same time, AI safety needs more people who can work independently, set strategy, manage teams, and build organizations. It remains an open question whether the field is short of such peo…
TL;DR In Q2 2026, we ran the first MATS x Coefficient Giving (CG) Pitch Week: a four-week program designed to take fellowship researchers from an early idea to a funding decision. The program was a joint effort between MATS , CG , Constellation , and Catalyze Impact . 38 expressions of interest; all were invited to a two-week Exploration Sprint. 17 teams applied and 15 teams pitched. $4.3M was awarded across six grants (47% of teams that pitched) with five org-founding grants and two independent research grants. Funding outcomes were not strongly correlated with the founder characteristics we could observe. What distinguished successful pitches was the maturity and evaluability of the idea: a named first user, a concrete first deliverable, a bounded scope, evidence of technical feasibility, and a legible reason the work required a new organization. Why we ran this, and why we're writing it up We believe that supporting founders could be unusually valuable. AI safety orgs founded by MATS alumni, such as Apollo and Timaeus , likely account for an outsized share of MATS’s impact. New organizations can also act as capacity multipliers, especially now that funding is outstripping the supply of organizations ready to absorb it , making founder support one of our highest-leverage activities. At the same time, AI safety needs more people who can work independently, set strategy, manage teams, and build organizations. It remains an open question whether the field is short of such peo…
Full article content could not be extracted automatically. Read the original below.