/ Public observatory on AI
ITAITA
Menu
MapCompareNewsCountriesIncidentsConnectionsAI labsState and AIOver timeHow it worksLeggi questa pagina in italiano

← All AI labs

Meta

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)
  • is rated by the FLI AI Safety Index
  • trained at least one model above 10²⁵ FLOP, the threshold above which the EU AI Act presumes a “systemic risk” (Epoch AI)
Latest releases
20 models released in the last 24 months
  • Muse Spark Open 15 Oct 2026
  • Muse Wonder 12 Oct 2026
  • Muse Wonder Full 12 Oct 2026
  • Muse Spark 1.3 2 Sep 2026
  • Muse Glimmer 10 Aug 2026
Models: 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.

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.

safety framework published

First version
3 Feb 2025
Latest version
Oct 2026 · 3 versions found
Risk thresholds
the document contains risk thresholds This only says whether the document contains thresholds, not whether they are adequate.

formerly «Frontier AI Framework», then «Advanced AI Scaling Framework»

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.

Safety policy

Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework (opens in a new tab)

tracked since 3 Oct 20260 changes

Choose a point to read what changed.

Usage policy

Llama API Acceptable Use Policy (opens in a new tab)

tracked since 13 Nov 20250 changes, plus 2 minor

Choose a point to read what changed.

Terms of service

Meta AI Terms (EU) (opens in a new tab)

tracked since 21 Jan 20260 changes, plus 1 minor

Choose a point to read what changed.

Llama API Terms of Service (opens in a new tab)

tracked since 11 Nov 20250 changes, plus 3 minor

Open Terms Archive combines the Llama API terms and Meta's data processing terms.

Choose a point to read what changed.

Privacy policy

Privacy Policy (Llama API) (opens in a new tab)

tracked since 11 Nov 20250 changes, plus 5 minor

Open Terms Archive combines the Llama API data commitments and Meta's privacy policy.

Choose a point to read what changed.

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

31 out of 100 (average of the 13 rated companies: 41) · Dec 2025 edition

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

Ratings by others: see FLI AI Safety Index (Summer 2026) (opens in a new tab) · SaferAI, risk management (opens in a new tab). Link only: their scores cannot be republished without permission.

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
5
last 12 months
22
last 24 months
51

Severity, last 24 months: serious 5 · moderate 39 · minor 3 · not rated 4

Show 1 more

All incidents mentioning Meta, in Explore incidents →Where the harm happens, in Connections →

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?