The Center for Humane Technology is changing how it tries to influence technology. The nonprofit is laying off nine employees and ending policy research and litigation work, while concentrating on projects that put its founders at the forefront.
The shift comes after courtroom wins tied to the center’s research on social media and amid a growing focus on artificial intelligence. It also follows years of internal disagreement over whether the organization should prioritize public advocacy, policy work, or direct engagement with influential decisionmakers.
A narrower mission, built around its founders
The center’s board concluded that trying to operate both as an advocacy group fronted by Tristan Harris and as a think tank producing policy papers had stretched the organization too thin. The board said it would now emphasize “public education, targeted briefings, and private coordination.”
It described the new direction as building on the founders’ success “reaching broad audiences and engaging influential decisionmakers.” The organization has not specified an exact number of layoffs, but former employees told WIRED that about half of its 16 non-founder employees are leaving. Those departures include executive director Julie Guirado and senior director of strategy Camille Carlton.
Some functions will end, including assistance with litigation and evaluation of AI tools. That is a meaningful change for a group whose research was used in lawsuits against social media companies over claims that their platforms were designed to keep children engaged with screens.
AI takes center stage
The Center for Humane Technology was founded in 2017 by Harris, Aza Raskin, and Randy Fernando. Its original aim was to press technology companies to take responsibility for the social effects of their products, including possible political radicalization and harm to teenagers’ mental health.
Harris’s focus has increasingly turned to AI risks. The center supported a petition calling for a pause in AI development, helped organize a congressional hearing about chatbot dangers, and advised on lawsuits and investigations examining AI labs’ design choices. It also advised on an ongoing case filed against OpenAI by parents of a teenager who died by suicide after interacting with ChatGPT.
Board chair Premal Shah said the organization needed to concentrate on one strategy in response to accelerated AI risk. Harris has also appeared in The AI Doc, which urges viewers to call for congressional intervention to protect the public from risks associated with the technology.
Debate over influence and institutional change
Former employees described disagreements about where the center should direct its efforts: consumers, technology companies, or lawmakers. Some said that initiatives such as an online course for technology workers and resources for educators on screen time lost momentum as the organization’s attention shifted toward AI.
Gail Barnes, who advised the center on social media strategy in its early days, said the organization was dropping work intended to turn Harris’s prominence into sustained pressure inside companies. Her criticism points to a central question in the shift: whether broad public education can lead to durable changes in how technology companies operate.
The center argues that mass communication can create public pressure that prompts action by influential leaders. Shah said Harris can communicate with mass audiences across the political spectrum and is invited to meet with lawmakers and technology executives.
What the shift means for the organization
The center has an annual budget of roughly $6 million and a similar amount in reserves, with funding from wealthy families and foundations. Former employees worry that concentrating resources on Harris could leave less capacity for work they see as important to democracy and civil liberties.
The choice also reflects a broader organizational tradeoff described in the article: a smaller set of founder-led efforts may focus attention and make use of public reach, while ending research and litigation support reduces the range of work the center performs. The board’s decision establishes which approach it intends to pursue; the article does not establish what effect it will have.
For a nonprofit founded to push technology companies to account for social consequences, the change raises questions about how public attention becomes practical influence. Its new strategy centers on bringing arguments to broad audiences and decisionmakers, while the former employees’ concerns focus on whether that approach can create lasting institutional pressure.