SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the philanthropist of this podcast with this. Hello and happy new year. You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rodri Davis, and we're back after a short break over the festive period with a whole new uh, I guess, series or run uh of episodes of the show, starting out with a great interview today and carrying on with more great interviews and deep dives over the coming months. Um so today's conversation is with J. Bob Alotta, uh, who is the senior vice president of global programmes at Mozilla. Um, Mozilla is a tech company, um, a really interesting one with a kind of hybrid nonprofit commercial structure, which we all hear us talking about a bit and during this episode of the podcast. Um and previously Bob was uh uh uh the executive director of Australia, um the Lesbian Foundation for Justice, which is a big kind of social justice uh grant maker based in in the US. And so uh they have a real background in movement building and kind of uh supporting grassroots organizing, which is really interesting in the context of working for an organization like Mozilla. And I sat down with Bob uh just before Christmas to have a conversation centered around the intersection of artificial intelligence and philanthropy, uh, which is something that Mozilla is really interested in and funding on, as you'll hear, but also it was very timely because as we recorded this, it wasn't long after all of the uh the hoo-ha about open AI and the hiring and re firing of Sam Altman, which is something that we discussed. Um, yeah, we had a really fascinating conversation talking about the intersection of uh philanthropy and AI. We talked a bit about Mozilla's focus on open source and open data and why that was so important to the ethos of the organization and kind of how they brought that to their thinking about artificial intelligence. We talked a bit about the new $200 million philanthropic coalition on AI that Mozilla's joined, which was uh announced fairly recently and linked to um a speech given by uh Vice President Kamala Harris. We talked about how Mozilla goes about funding its work on AI and particularly the work it does through its fellowship programme, where it's sort of supporting individual technologists and scientists, but also sort of activists and artists to um develop the technology but also think about its impact on uh on society. And we talked a bit about some of the challenges around data within the nonprofit world and kind of how we have to overcome those. Um we talked a bit about the narratives around AI and how we should understand the risks it poses, and whether this sort of relatively simple binary narrative that seems to be emerging between AI boomers who want to see the technology develop more, and AI doomers who think that it's all you know going to destroy humanity and it's a massive existential risk is the right one or whether it's sort of helpful and actually gets in the way of focusing on some of the more practical, short-term real-world risks of AI. We talked uh a bit about uh whether the um the recent chaos at OpenAI, whether some of the lessons that seemed to be taken from this by people in the tech world about the fact that you can't really combine profit and purpose in hybrid structures, and whether those were unhelpful, and actually kind of whether Mozilla's experience of doing that perfectly uh successfully for many years um could be taken as an example of how to do this sort of stuff properly. And we also then talked about what role civil society organizations can play in debates on AI, whether they have enough of a seat at the table at the moment, whether their voice is being heard, what further support they might need in terms of infrastructure and funding to uh to make that voice um heard more loudly. And we also um talked about whether you know overall we should be optimistic or pessimistic about the impact of AI on on philanthropy in civil society and on society more broadly. Um so without further ado, let's get into the conversation. I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with J Bob Alotta. Hi there, Bob. Hey there, how are you? Uh I'm very well, thank you. And thanks very much for joining us uh on the podcast. It's great to have a chance to talk to you. I'm really excited about it. Um and for people listening, I'm sure they'll have heard in the introduction, but you are currently the uh senior vice president for global programmes at Mozilla and working with the Mozilla Foundation. Um and obviously one of the big areas of interest for Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla um as an overall entity is around artificial intelligence, although it's certainly not all of what you want to do. Um and it would be great to talk to you a bit about that work today. Um so maybe the best place to start is for you just to say a bit about the work that you do at Mozilla, what your role there is, and what the organization's kind of core interest in AI is.

SPEAKER_01 5:30

Yeah, that would be my pleasure. So, as the SVP of Global Programs, all of our grant making, our fellowships, our research and analysis via our Insights team, special projects like our African Innovation Marathi or the Data Futures Lab, um, as well as our institutional partnerships and our festival, the Mozilla Festival, all fall under my remit.

SPEAKER_00 5:53

Yeah, because I'd seen that there are a few sort of headlines recently. I noticed particularly that it was announced um not long ago, I think just about a month ago, that you are um one of the funders involved in a new um $200 million philanthropic coalition um that's been launched that was, I think, sort of linked to a speech that um uh that Vice President uh Kamala Harris gave about um AI as well. And maybe you could say a bit about how that came about and what your involvement in that is.

SPEAKER_01 6:22

Sure, I'm happy to. So maybe I'll I'll back up and say I really my ethos around philanthropy is that we're meant to move money from where it purposefully is to where it purposefully is not, regardless of what you're funding. And so when I think about the resources that philanthropy has, it's really for us to invest that kind of time, talent to offset the influence of the incumbent tech players around irresponsible companies, those who don't center the people on the planet when developing AI. And so it's exciting for us whenever there's a significant opportunity to collaborate, to have a philanthropic voice, and certainly to aid government in centering um people and communities when it comes to uh the development of technology. So we live really at the intersection of technology and society. And to that end, we Mozilla, specifically inside of that $200 uh million dollar coalition invests about 20 million annually in philanthropy and and advocacy programs related to trustworthy artificial intelligence.

SPEAKER_00 7:28

Yeah, absolutely. And and in terms of the focus of the work that that coalition is doing that you're doing at Mozilla, you sort of mentioned there about making sure that money gets from uh you know where it currently is to where it's it's not and that uh intentionally. When it comes to AI, I mean, one of the things I think that we're increasingly hear from voices within civil society is that even where organizations are engaged around AI as an area or trying to be, it's very difficult to get a seat at the table and to make sure, particularly that the voices of kind of marginalized communities are heard in some of these debates that tend to be dominated by the tech industry. What role do you see sort of Mozilla as an organization playing in overcoming that challenge?

SPEAKER_01 8:13

Yeah, I think that's a really important question. I mean, sort of paramount to our entire theory of change is about working with civil society to both shift the narrative on AI and to build political power as it as an agency. Um, really, how are we working with grantee partners to ensure that there's both agency for people as it relates to the technology and accountability as it relates to its deployment and development? We really also believe it matters who's building the technology and have a deep invested interest in ensuring that people are coming from a diversity of backgrounds, even from an education standpoint, and that we're really looking at both the prototypes and the infrastructure behind the building blocks of AI and investing in things like open data sets. So that's sort of we really um are looking at this through the lens of from the from the grassroots grassroots to the grass tops, how can we aid civil society in ways that are meaningful and have lasting change?

SPEAKER_00 9:19

Yeah, and one thing I wanted to ask actually, because from what I understand, your own background is is in movement building, or at least sort of partly in that and in supporting grassroots organizations and organizations sort of representing marginalized communities. Have you found that that that experience has been kind of relevant to the role that you're playing at Mozilla as well?

SPEAKER_01 9:39

Yes, without question. I mean, I think um, first of all, it's kind of this false uh notion that technology lives in a vacuum. There's no there's no group of people, there's no organized group of people, there's no movement for for which technology doesn't also intersect. Um and so I think it's critically important to focus actually at those intersections, right? How are how is our work how do we desilo our work and working at those intersections? So any any movement, whether it's labor or um the environment or gender justice or economic justice, there's I think about technology not just as tools, but also as terrain in a place where all of us are living. And and so I think philanthropy has a in some ways, if we can respect that truth, then uh it sort of alleviates the uh need to look very far at who's being impacted and whom we should be partnering with and uplifting.

SPEAKER_00 10:40

Absolutely. And and one of the things you mentioned, I think already briefly in passing is the work that Mozilla does through its fellowship program. Um I thought that's particularly interesting because it's kind of a model based on funding individuals or think small groups of individuals. Can you say a bit about what the sort of theory of change is behind that and kind of why why that is seen as a you know an effective way of trying to drive um the agenda forward when it comes to something like AI?

SPEAKER_01 11:09

Yeah, I think I think it's critically important to harbor and call talent. You know, I think people are really excited when folks make headlines. We can rally around, you know, uh the shining stars who we understand to be changemakers, but usually uh before folks are in the spotlight, they have a long career that is likely difficult when they're pushing the envelope. And I think uh Mozilla has a has a unique role to play there in actually creating a home for folks who are being thoughtful about um the implicit biases that could get replicated inside of AI, who are imagining um the deployment and development of tools to positively impact society, and who are really looking at how to make data sets transparent and less opaque. So I think out at the crux, at the center of our fellowships and awards program is this idea that if we can bring people together in cohorts, if these singular scholars or singular technician technologists are actually brought together in community and we're developing an enduring community of practice that um that then uh will be fueling uh certainly a pipeline of talent who inevitably will take up the spotlight.

SPEAKER_00 12:32

And and does within that fellowship are the people who you're funding, and you mentioned their sort of technologists and scholars, does it also extend beyond that to people who might be working in the arts or or kind of trying to use um storytelling to explore the impact of AI and other technologies?

SPEAKER_01 12:50

Yes, I love that you asked me that question. Um I have a particularly keen interest. And um, first of all, I think artists um are inherently activists and we we support artists through a number of mechanisms, both through our festival, the Mozilla Festival, and through our creative media awards. And there we really are looking at artistic interrogations of AI so that we can push past the linear narrative and sort of the scripted ways of processing uh data and information and actually in many ways envision uh futures before they're technically tangible. We're able to, artists are able to push us into it not solely intellectual spaces. And so we try to also, when we're bringing academics, technologists, policymakers, funders together, we also are always bringing artists into the room. And it's my contention that um if we can actually have uh emotional experiences, that that'll also influence um the way we think about the work that we're trying to endeavor in the present tense. So uh we have a deep history of supporting artists, and and I think it's it's catalytic um to the work that uh many of us are trying to do.

SPEAKER_00 14:09

Yeah, it's really interesting to hear. I I've talked to a few people about this, the power of storytelling on the podcast. And I think the point they've made is is actually what if you capture an idea in one piece of fiction or art, it can often have an impact that's vastly more than hundreds or thousands of policy reports. So um I think it's a really interesting area to fund. Um one of the things I I was hoping to talk to you about, I think is is it feels like a particularly uh interesting time to be talking about um, well, AI as a whole, but also the intersection between AI and philanthropy, because not uh long before we recorded this, um, the whole kind of chaos around um Sam Altman and and his sacking and then rehiring at OpenAI happened. So there was this kind of soap opera that occurred in the world of AI and and lots of people uh became aware of it as a result of that. And one of the things that that I think a lot of commentators have have have latched onto is this idea that it was driven by a division within the tech world around whether we should be optimistic about AI and develop it as fast as possible, or whether we should you know have a kind of existential uh dread about what it might do if we accidentally create superintelligence. I guess my question for you was do you think that framing is an unhelpful one when it comes to philanthropy and civil society? And that it it sort of positions it as if there's these only these two options in terms of taking a view, and that doesn't, I think, necessarily represent the reality of where most civil society organizations are at the moment. I mean, what's what's your thought on that?

SPEAKER_01 15:42

Yeah, I I appreciate there's so much to unpack there.

SPEAKER_00 15:46

It's a big question, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 15:47

You bring that up. Um, maybe I'll I'll start with, you know, I'll take any opportunity to dispel binary notions of anything. So why don't we stop there? Um look, I think I think having such an extreme view of the risks of AI really only serves as a red herring from the actual harms that are taking place, arguably right now, right? So AI A has been deployed for quite some time, right? So generative AI has now taken up kind of the public attention. But even even inside of large language models, there are immediate harms where we could well point our attention. And to sort of be taken up by the catastrophic existential threat, I think redirects resources and attention and scrutiny, quite frankly, that um that's important to be working with now. So that I'll I'll so that's one answer. Um and then I think I think uh there's there's a I mean there's more to unpack there too, in terms of how are we how are we hopeful and also where do we think we have power and agency, right? So I think part of that kind of cataclysmic or the existential threat is about how little agency we could imagine we have as it relates to AI. And I would say that that again serves um a binary or didactic industry, whereas we consent on a daily basis, right? Uh particularly if we're in a GDPR context, right? But we're constantly being asked for our consent to uh around the the use of our data. And those are real choices, but it and we could actually spend some time there. And while it might feel boring or nerdy, it's it's the first line of defense, frankly, into what AI can become. We all have a deep value and trove of uh agency if it was actually if we were focusing that level of intention on how to consent to data's use. So so while it seems trivial, it's an interesting juxtaposition to this sort of beeha math conversation as it's entered the public sphere.

SPEAKER_00 18:22

Yeah, absolutely. And just on that latter point, um possibly take us down a slight rabbit hole because it's a good question. But do you do you think on in terms of that question of of data and sort of individual data and agency, do you think there's a one of the dangers is that we're at a point where the the benefits that we're offered um through a technology like AI in terms of sort of personalization and having things exactly as we want them, we're almost being asked to make a Faustian pact where we give away our data and some of our freedoms and our agency in return for these things. And perhaps at a societal level, that we need to be clearer that that is the deal that we're being asked to make. Whereas people I think maybe aren't always clear that that's what's going on.

SPEAKER_01 19:04

Yeah, I appreciate that framing. And I and I think and I think it brings us back to to this notion of agency. Yes, I think as it is currently written, that's that seems to be the the what's at stake. But I think it's also up to us to ask, need it to look like that, right? Should it look like that? Should that be the decision, right? And so I think the questions around there are a lot of people who are working around uh how data is um the data economy. For example, we have um something called the Data Futures Lab at Mozilla, right? It's solely aimed at rectifying the extractive and opaque nature of the data economy, right? Data is the backbone of all i systems, right? So we're we really look at the infrastructure, the technical tools that examine privacy, security, bias, ethics, right? Because we do believe that data could be collected, processed, used, and governed in better ways. So, what does it mean to actually empower a public to ask those questions and or have alternatives to offer, right? So are there projects that are rethinking the way that data is collected and used and stored? There are. And so that's also, I think, our responsibility inside a philanthropic frame to invest in those kinds of projects that could have an enduring impact on the way that data is used, on the choices that people actually have and ask those core questions, those should be in the in the forefront and as an option instead of this kind of um inevitability of it's either this way or or no way, right? In order to have kind of reap the benefit that um we have to kind of give up the reward. And I think I think that that's a false, a false paradigm.

SPEAKER_00 20:58

Yeah, absolutely. And and one of the things I know about um, you know, have known for a long time having used Firefox as a product and known about Mozilla is that the whole concept of doing things in an open source way is kind of core to everything that you do. And you've talked a bit about you know, trying to sort of take an open approach to data. When it comes to to trying to influence the wider development of AI through the the work that that you do, um how how big a challenge do you see it as trying to sort of drive the idea that we develop AI, you know, in with open source principles in mind, given that there, you know, there does also seem to be this arms race essentially going on where there are you know there are huge commercial prizes to be to be won as well.

SPEAKER_01 21:42

Yeah. Um I think I I I guess I would say I well, I'll I'll shy away from any kind of arms race narrative.

SPEAKER_00 21:53

Yeah, of course. Maybe it's a poor choice.

SPEAKER_01 21:55

No, no, no, no. No, it's not, it's I think that's how it's being depicted. I think. think you're reflecting the conversation accurately. So so the I the the choice uh the cho the poor choice isn't on you. I think that's that's um how we are experiencing this moment. I think that's really accurate. But it it it in fact what I think that does is uh kind of mitigate competition, right? It's suggesting that there's just this inevitable small enclave of giants who are doing this work, right? And so they have the control, the money, the data, and that's the only opportunity, that's the only option. But in fact, there are so many researchers and experts who are building alternatives. And that's why I think in this moment philanthropy has an outsized role to play to support projects that become less competitive in their nascency in a venture market, right? And so I think we have to at every chance we get spotlight and listen to more AI researchers, developers, the tech workers themselves across the globe who are asking the tough questions, who are building responsible or alternatives, right? We and so that's to to go back to your fellowship question, that's why we work in a fellowship model. Those are the kinds of projects that we support through our myriad grant making that those are the kinds of stories we uplift even in our own podcast. We have a podcast called IRL right and so we highlight so many people who are doing the kinds of work and the kinds of projects that actually are creating alternative whether it's folks like at Tejiko Media who are building they created an indigenous data license that enables communities to maintain guardianship over their data, right? So they're they're also challenging these kind of binary notions of consent, of the inevitability of how data is valued and deployed and also isolated from source. There are folks like Dr. Abeba Burhane who is a um a fellow of ours and you know who's now one of the times 100 most influential people in AI, right? Who uh who are really looking at the the bias that is implicit in large language models. There, there are many other people who I could uplift and and I think whom we should uplift. And so if their stories are taking up airtime, I think it changed it inherently changes the narrative changes the inevitability of this didactic uh existential crisis and also gives us alternatives and and the ability to demand even consumer technology meet the needs of a of a public and serve a public good.

SPEAKER_00 24:41

Yeah absolutely absolutely and and in addition to sort of focusing on how we can support and and amplify better ways potentially of developing AI as a technology is is there also this sort of the other side of it which is where we might need to look to legislation or regulation to constrain you know the the development of it and maybe kind of put put brakes on it at um at points? And is that something that sort of as a philanthropic funder that Mozilla would also be kind of interested in advocacy that that focuses more on on that kind of thing as well?

SPEAKER_01 25:19

Yeah I think I I I love that question because I think you know often regulation or policy feels just as far away as um being able to influence as technology does right to people like I don't know I don't the lawmakers are just doing X, Y, and Z. But in fact it's quite a consultative process. And so for us supporting the researchers the academics civil society actors to have a voice in those consultations is critically important and actually makes a world of difference. So I think it's it's it's really when we're imagining where we can be influential for a public good, that's actually a critical place. And now is the time you know too often I think policy kind of chases behind the times and this is one of those moments where we could actually build policy for what we're building in the technosphere. And you know we've seen kind of open consultative processes and I think there are a number of places where these voices can be influential in the United States, in the UK, certainly across Europe and in also places like Brazil and in India I think there's a lot of uh and in and in East and southern Africa we see uh legislators and policymakers asking questions and that's why I think we need to support the folks who have opinions that can be helpful um to support legislation that actually serves people and not just industry.

SPEAKER_00 26:51

Yeah and obviously you guys are sort of in that space and you and you're part of this this new coalition of of other funders. Do you have a sense that more funders are potentially thinking about this as as an area or do you think that actually the the philanthropy world is slightly behind the curve and that we probably need to ramp up efforts quite significantly I mean I think both end yeah I think I think without question um there's a there's a deep desire and I have certainly seen the shift you know a number of years ago um when I was um working in queer philanthropy LGBTQI funders, feminist funders social justice funders weren't seeing AI or technology as an issue relevant to them.

SPEAKER_01 27:38

And there were just a few of us who were saying actually no this is a gender justice issue this is an LGBTQI issue and certainly those voices are myriad now. So I've seen a huge shift A in in in philanthropy. And then recently we put out our our AI funding principles in large part because we were getting asked by people who weren't traditionally funding in this space how they could be impactful with their own philanthropy. So we've just put those out and I suspect in the new year we'll hold a number of forums and both intimate and public conversations around how funders who are interested in doing this work can do so without abandoning their theory of change but by leaning into it. Without abandoning even their current portfolio structures, but by leaning into it. Oftentimes I talk about technology as terrain for that very reason because I would be talking to uh folks in philanthropy who had for example their portfolios were only geographic in nature and I was like this is where your primary constituency also lives. And so um you you needn't convince your board that you need an entirely new structure in order to imagine how your primary area of interest or or constituency for whom you're to whom you're accountable and are interested in in funding is impacted by technology. In fact they're there they're living there already and um and so I think it's it's available um for everyone to create uh a a digital equity uh lens through which to fund without abandoning their current philanthropic commitment.

SPEAKER_00 29:22

Yeah and I I think it's really interesting to hear you use that terminology around uh lenses that the angst it certainly when you were talking it it echoed in my mind what I've heard from people trying to work in the climate space and saying we need you know we to get away from the idea that it's about funders needing to be climate funders or environmental funders and actually it's more about all funders thinking about applying climate as a lens to to all of their work. And it feels like there's something very similar to be said about about AI as well. In terms of doing that do you think one of the challenges at the moment for I mean funders but also you know civil society organizations who might have much more uh stringent resource constraints is is just having I mean both the time and the space to engage with these issues but also the resources and the knowledge and the infrastructure to allow them to do that. And and you know if so, what more what do we need to be putting in place and what do we need to be funding?

SPEAKER_01 30:18

Yeah that's a that's a critically important question because like the onus can't be on these same groups to just oh now figure this piece out right like that just it simply doesn't work. I think about it in a few different ways. One is what really for us to take a strong and honest look at what our accompaniment model is. We can't just give money right like that that doesn't work. How are we building relationships with our grantee partners to actually know what they need and how are we uh leveraging wraparound support for them to not lose sight of whatever their primary focus is and also deal with the layered nuance that AI and technology more broadly poses to the work that they're already trying to do and to create that support. And that we can do that certainly individually and certainly we as Mozilla have a have an accompaniment model, but also how are we doing that at a field level? I think the onus is on funders to really look at what a collaborative accompaniment model may look like to enable the long-term sustainability of the movements that we're um trying to support. I think that's one also uh we have one of our fellowship models is actually embedding um technologists in civil society organizations so that they don't actually have to suddenly pivot andor move resource to a whole other layer of expertise. And we really think of them as host organizations that again who are working in a cohort model so that they can support each other. The fellowships, the fellows forgive me are also creating a network of practice to support those civil society groups and I really think about fellows in an organizing model too that there are plenty of technologists also who are not living siloed lives, who care and are living also at those intersections what the civil society or movement groups might be dealing with and want to apply that knowledge inside of those movements. And so really supporting not just the individuals but cohorts of individuals to become integral parts of the movements that we're serving. So that's just two ways of approaching it. But I think it's really important for us to think about also how we can support those groups with unrestricted funds, you know, just as a as a measure of practice are we in right relationship with the groups that we're funding so that they can actually have the fluidity of funds to meet the moments that they're encountering in ways that are enduring and sustainable and kind of right sized for whatever comes their way.

SPEAKER_00 33:02

Yeah and it's I mean just just picking up on that because obviously unrestricted funding and kind of funding core costs is and and the whole idea of trust-based relationships between funders and grantees are big topics you know much more broadly across the the philanthropy world at the moment um in terms of your approach it sounds like certainly when it comes to something like the fellowship there is a pretty heavy trust-based element to it and you're kind of willing to fund things where the outcomes might be much longer term and they're relatively uncertain. How does that play out in terms of your kind of approach to to measuring the impact or kind of tracking the impact of what what you do do you have ways of doing that or you do you just need as a funder to be a little bit more sort of relaxed about not potentially being able to measure those things in in quite as rigorous a way as if you were being able to sort of attribute things directly to outcomes?

SPEAKER_01 33:53

Yeah that's such an important question because if we're um if our model of evaluation or learning is rigid then likely our mechanism for grant making and uh the outcomes themselves will be rigid. I think I think I think it's a multifold answer, right? How are we relying on qualitative experience as well as quantitative? How are we investing in a long game and and how are we measuring that long game in truly iterative successes um or failures you know and I think that that's the other thing that it's not if we take a look actually at the way technology companies work right or the development of of tools apps etc that there's this notion of failing forward right that you try something, you break it to make it work. And certainly people and movements and civil society deserve that same luxury right to to try things to fail and learn from them. So I think um we can't be an impediment to that kind of learning. And so certainly that has to also figure into our own measurement of impact. And uh I and then and then finally I think uh knowing what our capacity is and and discerning between our own individual institutional capacities and the capacity of the movements um to actually be sustainable. And if those are at odds then it's up to us to to actually account for those odds whether it's account to them to ourselves, to our teams, to our boards, etc. But again the onus shouldn't be on the grantee partner or or the movements at large.

SPEAKER_00 35:42

Yeah that's that's really interesting. I think that analogy you draw there between actually the license to fail forward in the commercial side of the tech world you know often when people then come to funding nonprofits they employ much more kind of rigorous and sort of harsher measures. So that's it's a really interesting point. I don't want to take up too much of your time so I just have a couple more questions that I'd really love to ask before we finish. One is circling back to um the recent situation at OpenAI we kind of talked about the whole you know unhelpfully binary narrative around AI. But I think one of the the other things that's come out of that is a lot of people certainly I've seen commentators within the tech world seeming to want to draw the conclusion that actually the reason that that all happened was that they tried to combine profit and purpose in their their structure and try to have this hybrid structure where part it was partly nonprofit and there was partly a commercial arm. And people sort of say oh well this just can't possibly work then. But actually you know one of the things I've seen people point out is that Mozilla's been happily doing this for a long time and obviously your your structure is is a hybrid one and as I understand the commercial part of the organization is is controlled by a nonprofit parent. I just wondered whether you sort of had thoughts on how you can make that kind of thing work well and why it's potentially a powerful model and whether you feel as though it's something that Mozilla might want to to sort of advocate for in future given that people are starting to look at it slightly more skeptically yeah um you you can't see my face because this is a podcast but but I'm smiling.

SPEAKER_01 37:16

I mean look I think that the open AI case shows the fault lines right it and and and tectonic shifts go in different directions but I that shouldn't say that there can't be solid ground here right we are we we've been in the news recently kind of as a juxtaposition to that experience of of open AI and you know it comes uh at the same time that we've announced for example the the uh our stellar new board members who've just come on board and I think that that really does show how we're an example of doing this right it's about it's about you know governance and accountability and clarity of purpose. I think the foundation is true to the Mozilla Manifesto and the mission and we have checks and balances and and a clear also distinct you know role we're not here to build product we're not that isn't what we're doing. We're here as as a philanthropy and so what does that mean? And so that's really about resourcing groups on the ground taking risks that industry can't take in terms of prototypes that we can fund and from the positionality of learning and creating artifacts that can be enduring, that we can fund the people asking the hard questions, scrutinizing implicit bias, looking at systemic imbalances and trying to upend them. And so I think the the foundation has a very distinct and clear personality inside of the Mozilla, the larger Mozilla project if you will and and a responsibility and you know and so I think we lean into that responsibility and take it really quite seriously those lines aren't blurred for us and um our governance lines aren't blurred and and the relationships um and roles are very clear and articulated. So I think uh yeah keep keep looking over here because we're pretty committed to that model working and and working in the service of a of a public vision.

SPEAKER_00 39:18

And that yeah it's really great to hear. And then just the the final thing I wanted to ask because I think it it's easy when talking about the the intersection of philanthropy and AI and I often find this to end up focusing on the sort of unintended consequences of AI and the need to address those and and some of the the the kind of slightly more pessimistic challenges. But I guess there is a side of it that maybe is more optimistic about how AI might be able to make philanthropy you know better and more effective and potentially more democratic and and all of these sorts of things. And I just wondered what your thoughts are on what some of the positive potential is for philanthropy for for AI in the world of philanthropy and whether any of that is is stuff that you're trying to put into practice yourselves at the moment in Mozilla in terms of how you go about doing your your funding.

SPEAKER_01 40:05

Yeah I certainly um if we had only a pessimistic view our focus and theory of change would be radically different. Maybe one way that I'll I'll illustrate or one body of work that I'll I'll um uplift here is our responsible computing challenge. Because here I really see you know it's very rare most of us in philanthropy are trying to right some kind of society's wrongs, right? And and I think it's very rare to actually get to have a true pedagogical interruption where there is systemic imbalance. And the responsible computing challenge very specifically looks at creating an intersectional body of work and redefining what computer education is and computer science is. Over 5000 students have taken over a hundred distinct responsible tech courses that have been developed by faculty members across 30 university and colleges. We've expanded RCC globally so uh now uh we're the program is running in Kenya in India in uh we're um beginning our program in South Africa and we're looking to also expand to Ghana and and then we're building uh an RCC institute so that that becomes a way to kind of train the trainers and so folks who are interested in um building alternative uh computer science curriculum can do that globally. So I think for us we're really looking excuse me at all of the layers of intervention and I feel really excited about the kinds of interdisciplinarity we're seeing inside of the respective institutions, the professors who are taking this up across learning models, whether it's in formal education settings, in in uh labs uh uh around the world in different kinds of training centers, and then with the institute it kind of unlocks this work not needing to be housed in an academic institution at all. So that's just one slice of what we do but I do really it's something that really excites me and and certainly gives me hope that um for things to be uh generated in the future that that arguably you and I can't even conceive of.

SPEAKER_00 43:13

Yeah and I mean that's a great hopeful note on on which to to leave things as well. So I mean it just remains to say thanks ever so much Bob for finding time to come on the podcast. It's been great to to have a chance to talk to you um and I certainly you know wish you all the best with the work that you're doing at Mozilla and we'll be keeping an eye on that uh in the future.

SPEAKER_01 43:30

Thank you so much for having me.

SPEAKER_00 43:32

It's really been a joy to be here okay great well my thanks again to Bob for finding the time to come on the podcast. It was really uh great to have a chance to discuss some of these really kind of big and timely issues. I will put links in the show notes to places where you can find more information about Mozilla and the work that they do and some things that Bob has said or written about AI and kind of other issues to do with technology and digital civil society. I'll also put links to a couple of relevant other podcast episodes and things that you might want to read that I've written. If you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters dot com where you can find lots of articles and news updates and also all the back episodes of this here podcast. You can also find me on social media I'm just about still there on Twitter slash X, although this might be the year that I finally say goodbye to it. I'm increasingly there on LinkedIn I might put a bit more effort into threads this year. I'm also on Blue Sky and Mastodon although I'm not really putting a lot of effort into those but please do come and search me out and convince me that I should spend more time on them. Other than that just like subscribe tell all your friends about it if you know people that you think would be interested in the podcast please do point them in this direction if you've got suggestions for topics we could cover or people I could talk to I'm always in the market for that kind of thing so please do get in touch. And otherwise I hope everybody has a great start to the year by the