You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
I spent 2025 and 2026 studying and then transitioning into AI Governance from my legal research background. I am from Bangladesh and I did the work entirely remotely, without any local ecosystem, and funding. I built my network through cold outreach and free courses and programmes.
I completed the CAIDP AI Policy Clinic (Jan - Apr 2026) as a research group member with distinction. I am a CAIDP Research Group Team Leader now (for the fall semester). I serve as a founding board member at Am I Tech Enough, UAE and am a Non-resident fellow at AI Policy Lab, India. I am also leading efforts to build AI Safety Bangladesh by coordinating with other AI safety communities in the region (Started in May). All of these are voluntary commitments.
I had to borrow money from close friends and peers to make it possible, so I could stay housed, connected and keep working while I studied and produced outputs.
The transition has worked. I have received a three-month independent contract at a US-based AI Safety Research Organization for 3 months (starting Oct - Dec). I will be researching how non-superpower led countries can gain bargaining power over International AI Governance. The contract pays the amount enough to cover the living costs for the next 3 months ($500 - Oct, $300 - Nov, $300 - Dec).
Additionally, it solves the biggest bottleneck I had, mentorship from a Senior AI safety researcher in this field.
However, I haven't been able to resolve the cost of getting here, and it is causing me immense physical and mental pressure. I'm asking for donated funds, not more loans. $1,550 clears most of my debts that need immediate resolution.
I will keep working either way. But this fund will improve my capacity to work and focus on this research with all my energy and attention. The most urgent debts fall due around 10 October so early pledges could help the most.
What are this project's goals? How will you achieve them?
Complete my research paper on how frontier-excluded states gain bargaining power over international AI governance (my contract deliverable, Oct–Dec), targeting a venue like IASEAI'27.
Study, with complete focus, the verification literature and treaty regimes which are instrumental to the research. Learn more about extreme concentration of power.
Launch AI Safety Bangladesh's first reading circle, coordinating with counterpart communities in Nepal, UAE, and Tanzania.
Apply to fellowships and other roles for when my contract ends (ERA, IAPS etc.) from a place of stability.
~$1,550: Transition debts that need immediate repayment.
Solo. I've been a self-directed researcher for seven years, first in law, now in AI governance. Everything below was built remotely from Bangladesh, on borrowed money, with no local ecosystem.
Current AI governance work:
Researcher (contract) (Oct–Dec 2026): developing a research paper on how non-superpower-led states gain bargaining power over international AI governance.
Non-Resident Fellow, AI Policy Lab - published The Institutional Tempo Problem: Why AI Outpaces Checks and Balances and Where to Put Them Instead (Oct 2026).
Team Leader, CAIDP AI Policy Clinic (Washington D.C.) - graduated with Distinction (Spring 2026), promoted to co-lead an international research cohort's country assessments for the AI & Democratic Values Index.
The Harm Index - my independent AI policy publication: pieces on frontier-excluded states' leverage claims (Sep 2026) and platform obligations to global data subjects (May 2026).
Field-building:
AI Safety Bangladesh (May 2026–) - building the country's first AI safety community; active coordination with AI Safety communities in the region.
Founding board member, Am I Tech Enough (Dubai) - drafting the founding charter for its AI Ethics & Standards function.
Before AI governance: seven years of legal research including multi-jurisdictional compliance analysis across 148 jurisdictions; rights-based casework with UNHCR-partnered BLAST; 200+ research outputs, policy reports, and op-eds as a ghostwriter.
Every 2025-2026 item above was produced on a $0 budget while in debt. Track record on doing this work under-resourced is, unfortunately, the thing I've proven most thoroughly. If funded, I will deliver far more.
Severe instability, mental turmoil, seeking work outside the field to manage debt are the most direct outcomes if the project fails. I've worked towards this field unpaid for two years and will continue either way. But the ugliest and devastating risk for me is losing the window when my first contract, publication, and community launch could compound into a stable position.
$1,100 contracted, $0 received as of 4 Oct, 2026. A 3-month research contract with an AI safety research organisation - $500 for October, $300/month Nov–Dec. This will cover minimum living costs during the contract. Before this: $0 raised. All 2025–26 work was self- and debt-funded.
Serhat
1 day agoI read your piece on leverage claims, especially the coordinated procurement argument. You mentioned bilateral deals as a way for AI companies to break these coalitions.
I'm curious, which safeguard do you think would be more realistic to implement first: transparency around bilateral agreements or shared procurement rules?
Mohsena Akter Drishty
1 day ago@atilgandev Thank you for reading it. This is one of the questions I keep circling back to.
So far my view is transparency first. I don’t necessarily see it as the stronger safeguard but it's something a fragile coalition can implement. Shared procurement rules are the prize, but they demand harmonised standards, enforcement machinery, and members willing to refuse side-deals before there is enough trust. There's also a logical dependency. You can't harmonise terms you can't compare and disclosure produces the data shared rules require. Firm-side disclosure as a condition of participating in coalition tenders, rather than member self-reporting could be the firm's incentive to gain access to the pooled market.
Mohsena Akter Drishty
1 day agoThe closest example I can point to at the moment is the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, plurilateral, heavy on transparency. The empirical work on it finds lower corruption-risk indicators such as fewer single-bidder contracts, fewer wins piling up with one firm. A caveat is that the GPA bundles transparency with non-discrimination and open tendering, so transparency alone doesn't get full credit.
On confidentiality, the objection every disclosure proposal runs into, the Seoul Frontier AI Safety Commitments offer something borrowable. They cover safety-framework implementation rather than contract terms, but the structure is more important here. Disclose publicly, unless doing so increases risk or divulges commercially sensitive information out of proportion to the societal benefit and whatever can't be public still goes confidentially to trusted actors. That fallback is the useful part, I think. It maps neatly onto disclosing to a coalition secretariat instead of every member.
I think the weak point is that the carve-out is self-assessed, so the firm decides what counts as disproportionate. Designing verification around this kind of gap is one of the aspects my current paper is looking into. @atilgandev
Serhat
1 day ago@Mohsena That's an interesting distinction. Although, requiring firms to disclose their bilateral terms as a condition for joining coalition tenders is already a form of shared procurement rule, just a much narrower one. So perhaps the first step isn't transparency versus coordination, but finding the smallest commitment countries can realistically coordinate around. Does that sound right?
Mohsena Akter Drishty
1 day ago@atilgandev Yes, that does sound right and much better actually. thank you. I'm not completely ready to commit to which rung comes first. That's one of the questions my paper's sequencing section needs to work through and this exchange helps. This is also what this Manifund request is for, the stability to sit with questions like this one properly instead of answering them between crises.
zahidul Islam
3 days agoI've known Drishty for more than ten years, and I want to vouch for her from a different angle than the research itself. I am currently pursuing Masters of ICT Research from Melbourne Institute of Technology. I'm one of the people she's helping transition toward AI safety, she curated study materials for me personally, while dealing with circumstances that would have stopped most people entirely.
That's the pattern with her, life keeps throwing curveballs, and she keeps showing up with sheer grit and passion for her work and for other people's growth. The dedication you see on this page isn't a funding-pitch persona, it's just what she's like. A small grant here buys the gap between someone doing this work under crisis conditions and someone doing it properly resourced. She's one of the safest bets I know.
David Williams-King
6 days agoI have spoken to Mohsena and introduced her to another lawyer in AI safety; they spoke and he had very positive feedback. I also saw Mohsena's AI governance research draft. On this basis, I asked her to work with Lida Safety, prepaying for each month up front. However, Lida is only able to support her living expenses. I recommended she apply to BlueDot, but they did not fund the request. Hence, I hope Manifund can be helpful here.
Jim Griffith
6 days agoMohsena is a brilliant, insightful, and dedicated researcher and leader. She has much value to offer for beneit of the topics that she engages in and for the programs she supports.