xAI misses a second, self-imposed deadline to implement a Frontier Safety Policy
Elon Musk's company has said nothing about if and when they plan to implement a full frontier safety policy meeting the standards of the Seoul commitment.
3
min read

On the same day that The Midas Project released the Seoul Tracker in February 2025, xAI released a "draft" of their frontier safety policy, entitled their Risk Management Framework.
Unfortunately, xAI's draft did not fulfill the commitments as described — for one, it was explicitly a tentative plan, with "DRAFT" watermarked across every page. Secondly, it applied only to unspecified future systems "not yet in development," and thus presumably did not cover Grok 3 — even though that model proved to be a "frontier system" as described in the Seoul Commitment. And third, it failed to "articulate how risk mitigations will be identified and implemented," a core component of the Seoul commitments.
The upside, or so it appeared, was that following the draft would come a full release — and, having missed the February 10th deadline to meet the standards of the Seoul commitments, xAI created a new, self-imposed deadline. Their policy reads: "We plan to release an updated version of this policy within three months."

Released February 10th, 2025
May 10th has now come and gone — three months elapsed — and xAI has said nothing about if and when they plan to implement a full frontier safety policy meeting the standards of the Seoul commitment.
This marks two deadlines missed. In 2024, they promised the governments of the United Kingdom and South Korea that they would have a complete frontier safety policy in place by February 10th. They only had a patchy draft. Now, they've missed their three-month deadline to release an improved policy.
A Pattern of Behavior
This isn't the first time Elon Musk's xAI has demonstrated a casual approach to AI safety concerns. Despite Musk's frequent public statements about the potential dangers of AI, his own company appears unwilling to commit to concrete, verifiable safety measures.
A recent study by SaferAI rated xAI as having among the weakest risk management practices in the industry. Their researchers noted that xAI "received the lowest possible score because they have barely published anything about risk management."
The Path Forward
As The Midas Project continues to monitor compliance with the Seoul commitments, we call on xAI to:
- Immediately publish an updated Risk Management Framework as promised
- Strengthen the framework significantly beyond the draft version, particularly in the areas of risk mitigation and halting procedures
- Commit to transparency about their risk evaluation processes and results
- Engage meaningfully with third-party experts and government stakeholders
Until these steps are taken, we must question whether xAI's participation in the Seoul Summit was merely a public relations exercise rather than a genuine commitment to responsible AI development.
Research, updates, and insights from the frontlines of AI accountability.
We lead strategic initiatives to monitor tech companies, counter corporate propaganda.
5
min read
A pro-AI, dark-money group tied to David Sacks appears linked to a new astroturfing campaign
5
min read
SpaceXAI just released Grok 4.5. It may have broken California’s AI law in the process.
5
min read
A Pro-AI Super PAC's Secret Meme Sockpuppets

3
min read
The Midas Project Joins Coalition Warning about xAI’s Track Record in light of SpaceX’s IPO
The Midas Project, alongside a coalition including Encode, Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, and Guidelight AI Standards, released "xAI: The Unpriced Risk in SpaceX's IPO."
Frequently asked questions
Have more questions? Our team is happy to help, contact us.
We engage in a combination of research, outreach, and public advocacy to ensure that AI companies are meeting public expectations, and living up to their past promises, when it comes to ensuring responsible AI development and deployment.
The most important component of our work is helping to identify and disseminate industry best practices for AI development. We review technical literature, regulatory guidance, and case studies to distill concrete measures—such as frontier-model risk assessments, red-teaming requirements, audit regimes, and whistle-blower protections—and advocate for the most important voluntary steps that companies can take today to ensure they are acting responsible.
We also monitor whether companies follow their stated policies and industry norms. When evidence shows back-tracking or inadequate controls, we document these gaps and publicly press for corrective action—mobilizing employees, customers, and civil-society allies until the company adopts the necessary safeguards.
Finally, we publicize our research to help ensure the public is aware of how AI developers stack up on safety and responsibility. We release concise scorecards, incident analyses, and memos so that regulators, investors, and the wider public can see how individual developers perform on safety and responsibility.
Various AI experts including Nick Bostrom and Stuart Russell have compared the development of advanced AI to the myth of King Midas.
According to the legend, King Midas once asked a powerful satyr to make it so that whatever he touched instantly turned into gold. At first, he was thrilled with his new powers. But the King soon discovered that he couldn’t touch food, water, or even his family without instantly turning them to metal. In other words, the sudden attainment of an incredible power with insufficiently well-specified goals and safeguards led to a terrible tragedy.
Much like King Midas, tech companies are now eagerly pursuing incredible wealth and power by developing artificial intelligence, a technology that will change our world forever. But how will we know that it is designed in alignment with our collective human values? If we misspecify even a single goal or safeguard for these systems, how will we prevent them from causing an incredible catastrophe?
In the words of Stuart Russell, “If you continue on the current path, the better AI gets, the worse things get for us. For any given incorrectly stated objective, the better a system achieves that objective, the worse it is.”
The Midas Project is a nonprofit organization founded in early 2024 by Tyler Johnston. Our work is supported by a small core team and a wider base of volunteers and supporters. We are a nonprofit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization that relies on donations from the public.
No. One of our central values is a pro-technology attitude.
Progress in technology has improved lives for millions of people around the globe (after all, without it, we wouldn’t have penicillin, air conditioning, or the internet). Artificial intelligence is already being used by millions to help improve medicine, education, and overall living standards. We believe this progress should continue, and we hope AI will be a positive force in the world.
However, we are also realists — and skeptical realists at that. We believe advanced AI systems may be a “dual-use” technology that can be used for harm as well. In order to avert social inequality, concentration of power, or AI-driven catastrophes, everybody needs to have a voice at the table when decisions about development and deployment are being made.
Currently, the vast majority of these decisions about the future of AI are being made in shadowy corporate boardrooms with little oversight and accountability. That’s why The Midas Project is committed to raising awareness about the risks of AI, and ensuring that global citizens are given a chance to make their voice heard.
If you’d like to get involved, consider signing up for our newsletter, joining as an official volunteer, or making a charitable donation today.
You can email us at info@themidasproject.com, or reach out via the form on our contact page.