Naver
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
- South Korea · Others
- Why it is on this page
- signed the Seoul commitments (May 2024)
- Latest releases
- 1 model released in the last 24 months
- HyperCLOVA X SEED 32B Think 29 Dec 2025
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.
- not on the list as of 27 Oct 2026
- signed
- not applicableFrozen archive: lists read from copies and articles on 26 October 2026 (the archive did not respond), to be rechecked.
- not on the list as of 27 Oct 2026List of submitted reports read on oecd.ai, without automated collection; report texts are not republished (all rights reserved).
- not applicableList 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 2024not 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.
safety framework published
- First version
- 17 Jun 2024
- Latest version
- 7 Jul 2026 · 2 versions found
- Risk thresholds
- the document contains only partial thresholds This only says whether the document contains thresholds, not whether they are adequate.
severe risks no longer appear in version 2.0
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
NAVER AI Safety Framework 2.0 (opens in a new tab)
Choose a point to read what changed.
First version seen on 23 Jul 2026
This version: archived copy (Wayback Machine) (opens in a new tab)
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)
Ratings by others: see 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
- 0
- last 12 months
- 2
- last 24 months
- 2
Severity, last 24 months: serious 0 · moderate 2 · minor 0 · not rated 0
- Naver sued for using broadcaster content to train AI systems (opens the South Korea page)
- Naver AI mislabels Dokdo as Japanese territory (opens the South Korea page)
All incidents mentioning Naver, 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).