We are a nonpartisan, policy-agnostic nonprofit—we don't prescribe outcomes, we build capacity. We are grounded in specific values and normative commitments (see below), and we believe deeply that Civil Society's voice is essential to legitimate AI governance. But we are (and will remain) intentionally agnostic about which specific policies, regulations, or ethical frameworks are right.

Our role is to ensure Civil Society organizations—across the ideological spectrum—have the competence, confidence, and seat at the table to apply their own values and perspectives to AI governance decisions. We don't champion specific regulations. We help organizations understand how AI affects their work, document harms, build coalitions, and engage in governance processes as informed, independent voices. Whether that leads them to advocate for strict liability, market-based solutions, participatory auditing, or other approaches depends on their community's values—not ours.

Through mission-locked governance, participatory decision-making, and financial independence overseen by an independent Ombudsperson, we remain accountable to Civil Society itself rather than to any single funder, government, or ideology.

We are guided by five core values that enable us to serve as trusted infrastructure for Civil Society across ideological lines:

Epistemic Humility. We test, learn, and adjust. In periods of technological upheaval, certainty is dangerous and overconfidence is a liability. This means we resist the temptation to enshrine our own conclusions as universal truths, and we remain genuinely open to evidence that contradicts our priors—including evidence that our foundational commitments may need recalibration in light of new realities.

Plurality and Genuine Contestation. We learn most from those who see the world differently. We create spaces where diverse worldviews can genuinely contest—not reach false consensus—because the strongest governance emerges from wrestling with real disagreement, not papering over it. We work with civil society organizations across the political and ideological spectrum, from those advocating for strict AI regulation to those emphasizing innovation and market solutions. We insist on shared commitment to democratic process and human dignity, but we do not require agreement on policy.

Empowerment Through Understanding. We believe Civil Society's power comes from competence, not just awareness. We invest in the deep, practical knowledge that enables organizations to engage as equals in complex technical and policy discussions—and to reach their own informed conclusions grounded in their community's values.

Impartiality and Independence. We create trusted neutral spaces for open dialogue, free from state control or market pressures. Our independence—protected through mission-locked governance and financial diversification—allows us to serve the democratic process itself rather than predetermined outcomes or funder interests. We are not neutral on whether democratic input matters; we are neutral on what that input should conclude.

Integrity. We align our actions with our values. We practice the participatory governance we advocate. We hold ourselves accountable through an independent Ombudsperson who has authority to conduct annual reviews and flag where we've fallen short of our own standards.

In addition to our core values, three normative commitments are foundational to our work. We share them explicitly because integrity requires transparency: if you're going to work with us, you should know where we stand.

Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy Matter. We believe that decisions about AI systems—particularly those affecting fundamental rights, labor, or public goods—require meaningful input from those affected by them. This is not merely instrumentally valuable (better decisions) but fundamentally important: people deserve a voice in decisions that shape their lives. We reject technological determinism and the notion that markets or expert consensus alone can substitute for democratic deliberation. This commitment cuts across ideological lines—we work with organizations across the political spectrum who share it.

Human Flourishing Is the Measure. We use the Capability Approach (developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum) as our metric for whether AI development is genuinely beneficial. This means we ask: Does this technology expand people's real substantive freedoms—their ability to live with dignity, exercise autonomy, participate in community, pursue their conception of a good life? We are skeptical of framings that treat GDP growth, efficiency gains, or technological progress as ends in themselves. Again, this commitment is not left or right; people across the ideological spectrum care about human flourishing—they may disagree about how to achieve it.

Civil Society Is Essential Infrastructure. History demonstrates that technological revolutions have been humanized—made to serve human dignity rather than merely extractive interests—through the sustained organizing of Civil Society. States and markets alone have not done this work. We believe organized citizens, independent of state and market control, are essential to legitimate AI governance. We work to strengthen that infrastructure, knowing that Civil Society will use it to reach different conclusions than we might.s here