6-minute read
In recent discourse among funders, artificial intelligence (AI) in arts grantmaking has moved from theoretical possibility to practical consideration. Questions about AI’s role in grantmaking—from administrative support to the more consequential possibility of AI-assisted application review—are surfacing in conference rooms, professional networks, and strategy sessions with increasing urgency. The pressures driving these conversations are familiar: increasing application volumes, limited staff capacity, and mounting expectations for speed and consistency in decision-making.
Long-time arts strategist, technologist, and program director, Koven Smith captures both the interest and ambivalence in a reflection piece that summarized a recent Grantmakers in the Arts (GIA) panel discussion exploring these very questions. What stood out in Smith’s reflection was not a rush toward adoption, but a shared unease among panelists. Many of the scenarios discussed, such as using AI reactively during application surges, or in response to board pressure, highlighted how easily these tools could be introduced without sufficient deliberation, literacy, or safeguards.
These concerns align closely with the work we’ve done in Responsible AI for Public Evaluation, a report we developed with the IBM Center for the Business of Government. That report used a government-funded arts grant program as its central case study, focusing on how AI could be used to evaluate decision-making processes. Since its release, one of the most common follow-up questions we’ve received is also the one we intentionally avoided answering directly:
What would it look like to use AI systems to review grant applications themselves?
As these conversations like the one at GIA make clear, this question is no longer hypothetical.
