Inflection AI

Conflict of interest. This site uses Claude, by Anthropic, to read and summarise texts; Anthropic is one of the companies on this page. Claude gives no judgements or rankings. The categories of the Seoul safety frameworks (e.g. «does not cover severe risks») come from Claude's reading of the documents: the document is linked on each company's page.

1 · Who it is

Headquarters: United States · United States
Why it is on this page: signed the Seoul commitments (May 2024)
trained at least one model above 10²⁵ FLOP, the threshold above which the EU AI Act presumes a “systemic risk” (Epoch AI)
Website: inflection.ai (opens in a new tab)
Latest releases: 0 models released in the last 24 monthsModels: Epoch AI, CC BY 4.0 licence.

2 · What it promised

Public commitments and signature status. Official lists have no dates: for names that appeared after our first reading of the list, the day we first saw them.

EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (opens in a new tab)10 Jul 2025
not on the list as of 27 Oct 2026
Frontier AI Safety Commitments (Seoul) (opens in a new tab)21 May 2024
signed
White House voluntary AI commitments (opens in a new tab)21 Jul 2023
signed
Frozen archive: lists read from copies and articles on 26 October 2026 (the archive did not respond), to be rechecked.
G7 Hiroshima Process reporting framework (OECD) (opens in a new tab)Apr 2025
not on the list as of 27 Oct 2026
List of submitted reports read on oecd.ai, without automated collection; report texts are not republished (all rights reserved).
Chinese AI Safety Commitments (AIIA) (opens in a new tab)Dec 2024
not applicable
List read on AGORA (ETO/CSET, CC BY-NC, no automated collection) and copied into the file. The WeChat original cannot be opened by programs.
EU AI Pact (opens in a new tab)25 Sep 2024
not on the list as of 27 Oct 2026

3 · What it wrote and changed

Under the Seoul commitments the companies promised to publish, by the Paris summit (10-11 February 2025), a safety framework on severe risks, with the thresholds beyond which they consider them intolerable.

no safety framework found on the company's website as of 27 Oct 2026

only an October 2023 text, without thresholds

Search by Claude of the company's websites on 27 Oct 2026, still to be checked again by a person.

Documents tracked over time

Versions of the text found in the copies of the Wayback Machine and Open Terms Archive: each point is a version that differs from the previous one.

No documents tracked for this company.

Summaries by Claude, checked by a person; the text of the documents belongs to the company: read it through the links.

4 · What others say

Stanford Foundation Model Transparency Index

Not rated in the edition used (Dec 2025) of Stanford's Foundation Model Transparency Index.

Data: Stanford CRFM, CC BY 4.0 licence · data and method (opens in a new tab)

Each rating measures different things on different companies: they are not comparable with each other.

5 · What happened

Incidents in which the company is named as developer of the system (AI Incident Database and AIAAIC).

last 6 months: 0
last 12 months: 0
last 24 months: 0

No incidents as developer in the last 24 months.

6 · What we cannot see

internal documents and unpublished safety evaluations;
versions of documents that no archive saved;
“no document found” is the result of a search, not proof that the document does not exist;
signatory lists often have no dates: the date is the day we first saw the name;
incidents the press does not report: the best-known companies have more recorded incidents because they are talked about more;
many incidents do not have a severity yet;
Chinese companies publish less in English and some of their commitments are read from third-party sources (AGORA).

Are you a company mentioned here?