A response to Gayle Roberts’ call for OpenAI to give faster—and better
As AI reshapes the economy, philanthropy must move in sync—matching speed with strategy. Gayle Roberts’ recent piece, “Philanthropy at the Speed of AI,” rightly frames giving as a tool of power and legitimacy. But speed alone isn’t the fix. The deeper issue is alignment: Are tech-driven funders supporting the people and infrastructure that make both equity and experimentation possible?
Funders often expect nonprofits to move at startup speed—without startup resources. That urgency can make support fast but shallow, revealing a deeper disconnect in how community power is built and sustained. It’s not just about innovation or speed; it’s about relationships, presence, and shared priorities. Funders who overlook this risk undermining the very change they claim to support.
Ironically, this creates the very risks Roberts warns about. When tech companies treat equity work as public relations theater, they invite accusations of “AI-washing”—appearing to address concerns while maintaining harmful practices. When they impose venture capital timelines on community organizing, they can damage relationships with the exact stakeholders they need for legitimacy. Rather than building the “shield” Roberts describes, superficial giving often fuels backlash, highlighting disconnection from community priorities.
That’s why OpenAI’s recent $50 million philanthropic commitment—while headline-worthy—raises questions. When set against $12 billion in annual revenue, the scale feels symbolic rather than structural. And without a strategy grounded in community-informed priorities, even large gifts risk missing the mark.
The challenge runs deeper than dollars or intentions: corporate funders can sometimes apply product metrics—scalability, user growth, rapid deployment—to equity work, overlooking that community power grows on different timescales and measures success differently.
To make a lasting impact, tech philanthropy must stop treating equity work as an add-on or marketing strategy. It must invest in long-term capacity, listen to community leaders, and fund trust-based models that enable organizations to do the work in the ways they know are most effective.
Effective philanthropy starts with trust, accountability, and shared vision—not urgency alone.
In my second essay, I’ll offer a blueprint for what equitable, effective giving can look like—grounded in partnership, speed, and the infrastructure of justice.
A response to Gayle Roberts’ call for OpenAI to give faster—and better
As AI reshapes the economy, philanthropy must move in sync—matching speed with strategy. Gayle Roberts’ recent piece, “Philanthropy at the Speed of AI,” rightly frames giving as a tool of power and legitimacy. But speed alone isn’t the fix. The deeper issue is alignment: Are tech-driven funders supporting the people and infrastructure that make both equity and experimentation possible?
Funders often expect nonprofits to move at startup speed—without startup resources. That urgency can make support fast but shallow, revealing a deeper disconnect in how community power is built and sustained. It’s not just about innovation or speed; it’s about relationships, presence, and shared priorities. Funders who overlook this risk undermining the very change they claim to support.
Ironically, this creates the very risks Roberts warns about. When tech companies treat equity work as public relations theater, they invite accusations of “AI-washing”—appearing to address concerns while maintaining harmful practices. When they impose venture capital timelines on community organizing, they can damage relationships with the exact stakeholders they need for legitimacy. Rather than building the “shield” Roberts describes, superficial giving often fuels backlash, highlighting disconnection from community priorities.
That’s why OpenAI’s recent $50 million philanthropic commitment—while headline-worthy—raises questions. When set against $12 billion in annual revenue, the scale feels symbolic rather than structural. And without a strategy grounded in community-informed priorities, even large gifts risk missing the mark.
The challenge runs deeper than dollars or intentions: corporate funders can sometimes apply product metrics—scalability, user growth, rapid deployment—to equity work, overlooking that community power grows on different timescales and measures success differently.
To make a lasting impact, tech philanthropy must stop treating equity work as an add-on or marketing strategy. It must invest in long-term capacity, listen to community leaders, and fund trust-based models that enable organizations to do the work in the ways they know are most effective.
Effective philanthropy starts with trust, accountability, and shared vision—not urgency alone.
In my second essay, I’ll offer a blueprint for what equitable, effective giving can look like—grounded in partnership, speed, and the infrastructure of justice.