The Center for Humane Technology is laying off roughly half its workforce and eliminating its policy research and litigation functions, former employees told WIRED. The organization, cofounded by ex-Google product manager Tristan Harris and prominently featured in the documentary The Social Dilemma, will instead concentrate on what it describes as "founder-led" efforts. The restructuring follows years of internal disagreements over the group's strategic direction, according to 16 former staff members who spoke with WIRED.
Nine of the nonprofit's 16 non-founder employees are departing, including executive director Julie Guirado and senior director of strategy Camille Carlton. The layoffs arrive shortly after the center helped secure major legal wins against social media companies in cases that relied on its research arguing platforms were intentionally engineered to keep children hooked on their screens. Going forward, the organization will prioritize initiatives featuring its founders at the helm, such as "public education, targeted briefings, and private coordination," building on their track record of "reaching broad audiences and engaging influential decisionmakers," the board announced last week. Tasks like supporting litigation and assessing AI tools will be discontinued. With an annual budget of approximately $6 million and roughly the same amount held in reserves, the center has been supported by wealthy families and foundations.
Board chair Premal Shah explained the decision by stating, "This moment of accelerated AI risk demands we focus on one strategy, and we have chosen to focus on what we have always done best so that we can meet the moment." The report notes Harris has recently joined a growing number of voices warning about dangers posed by advanced artificial intelligence, including the possibility of an "AI takeover" if the technology slips beyond human control. The center encouraged signatures on a prominent petition calling for a pause in AI development and helped arrange a congressional hearing on chatbot risks, while also advising on lawsuits and investigations examining AI labs for their design decisions, including an active case filed against OpenAI by parents whose teenage child died by suicide after using ChatGPT.
Internal debates had simmered for years over whether the organization should function as an advocacy platform fronted by Harris or as a think tank generating policy papers, former workers said. Several ex-employees characterized the workplace culture as unnecessarily "frenetic" and "insanity-inducing," describing clashes with Harris over whether to direct efforts toward consumers, tech companies, or legislators. Shah contested the characterization but acknowledged the center operates at a fast pace given the urgency of its work. The center at one point developed an online course for tech workers seeking to build more humane systems that attracted thousands of participants, but retired it as Harris' attention shifted toward AI concerns, according to people familiar with the project. Another effort to create resources for educators addressing screen time issues also fell away. CHT's board ultimately concluded that attempting to operate simultaneously as both an advocacy group and a policy research organization had stretched resources too thin.
The shift away from litigation support and policy research comes as the center competes with established nonprofits and numerous new entrants for funding and influence in shaping AI policy. Gail Barnes, who advised the center on social media strategy in its early years, said the board is abandoning work meant to transform Harris' visibility "into durable pressure" capable of driving genuine change within companies. Former employees expressed concern that resources might now flow away from what they consider more urgent matters regarding AI's effects on democracy and civil liberties. The restructuring represents a bet that broad public messaging matters more than institutional mechanisms for accountability—a gamble that hinges on whether awareness or enforcement is the true bottleneck in tech reform. Organizations pursuing systemic change through legal and regulatory channels may find themselves competing for attention with celebrity-driven campaigns that prioritize reach over institutional teeth.