Samsung Electronics
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
- 2 models released in the last 24 months
- Tiny Recursive Model (TRM-Att) 6 Oct 2025
- Gauss2 21 Nov 2024
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 2024signed
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.
published, but does not cover severe risks
- First version
- Feb 2025
- Latest version
- 25 Jun 2026
- Risk thresholds
- the document contains no thresholds on severe risks This only says whether the document contains thresholds, not whether they are adequate.
covers on-device AI
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
AI Safety Framework (opens in a new tab)
Choose a point to read what changed.
Minor change on 5 Sep 2026
Only dates, version numbers or a few words: no summary.
Previous version: archived copy (Wayback Machine) (opens in a new tab)Later version: archived copy (Wayback Machine) (opens in a new tab)
First version seen on 21 Mar 2025
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)
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).