The Straits Times

Global AI industry falls short on safety, think-tank warns

BigGo Finance

Global AI Safety Ratings Flunk: Top Score Barely a C+

WBUR

Left to self-police, AI companies weaken safety commitments, study finds

Seoul Economic Daily

Global Big Tech Retreats on AI Safety Pledges, Experts Warn

Inside AI Policy

Future of Life Institute hands out middling grades for major AI developers’ safety efforts

Axios

Report Ai Safety Pledges

Time

The Latest AI Safety Rankings Are In. Nobody Gets an A

Future of Life Institute

AI Safety Index  Summer 2026

Let's Data Science

Future of Life Gives Frontier AI Labs Weak Safety Grades

International AI Safety Report

International AI Safety Report 2026

FLI_org

Metaculus

Us Govt Maintain List Of Ai Safety Incidents By 2030

Elon Musk

Rishi Sunak

Kamala Harris

Bill Gates

Andrew Ng

Yoshua Bengio

Fei-Fei Li

Demis Hassabis

Melanie Mitchell

Sam Altman

Dario Amodei

Geoffrey Hinton

Yann LeCun

Gary Marcus

Max Tegmark

Connor Leahy

Eliezer Yudkowsky

Jaan Tallinn

Marc Andreessen

Eric Schmidt

Norbert Wiener

Arthur Clarke

Irving John Good

Claude Shannon

Hans Moravec

John Smart

There's a "wall of fear-mongering and doomerism" in the AI world right now.

"Worrying about AI today is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars."

Concerns that AI could pose a threat to humanity is "preposterously ridiculous."

Claiming AI poses an existential threat is "such an extreme" and risks "wip[ing] out some of its potential benefits."

"I'm more concerned about... the risks that are here and now [than the existential threat of AI]."

Current AI is "not anywhere close" to posing an existential threat but it could in the future.

AI is the "biggest existential threat" to humanity.

AGI's worst-case scenario would be "lights-out for all of us."

Powerful AI systems "taking control" pose an "existential threat."

AI has a "10 to 25 per cent" chance of destroying humanity.

"The most likely result of building a superhumanly smart AI... is that literally everyone on Earth will die."

Does AI Pose an Existential Threat to Humanity?

Stuart Russell

Shane Legg

Society is more likely to get "cat-level" or "dog-level" AI years before human-level AI.

"[W]e will eventually reach AGI... and quite possibly before the end of this century."

"Superhuman AIs" will be achieved "between a few years and a couple of decades."

"Digital intelligence" could overtake us within "5 to 20 years."

We may achieve "something like AGI or AGI-like in the next decade."

"[W]e could get to real AGI in the next decade."

"Human-level" AI could occur in "two or three years."

"I'd be surprised if we don't have AGI by [2029]."

Will AI Surpass Human Intelligence, and When?

The Future of Life Institute on Tuesday released its 2026 first-half AI Safety Index, evaluating nine major AI companies — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, Z.ai, Alibaba Cloud, xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — across six categories including risk assessment, existential safety and governance.

The Future of Life Institute on Tuesday released its 2026 first-half AI Safety Index, evaluating nine major AI companies — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, Z.ai, Alibaba Cloud, xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — across six categories including risk assessment, existential safety and governance.

Anthropic ranked first overall with a grade of C+, while OpenAI and Google DeepMind each received a C and Meta scored a D+. xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral all received failing grades, and not a single company earned an A or B in any category.

Anthropic ranked first overall with a grade of C+, while OpenAI and Google DeepMind each received a C and Meta scored a D+. xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral all received failing grades, and not a single company earned an A or B in any category.

The index found that Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Meta had each weakened or abandoned prior commitments to halt development if certain risk thresholds were reached. Anthropic dropped a pledge in February not to train AI systems without first guaranteeing its safety measures were sufficient.

FOX News

The index found that Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Meta had each weakened or abandoned prior commitments to halt development if certain risk thresholds were reached. Anthropic dropped a pledge in February not to train AI systems without first guaranteeing its safety measures were sufficient.

The FLI report identified the expansion of military AI applications as a serious concern, noting that major companies had reversed earlier bans on military use. Anthropic was specifically criticized for what the report called "questionable military engagement," citing media reports that its technology was used in U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran.

The FLI report identified the expansion of military AI applications as a serious concern, noting that major companies had reversed earlier bans on military use. Anthropic was specifically criticized for what the report called "questionable military engagement," citing media reports that its technology was used in U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran.

Existential safety was the weakest category across all nine companies. FLI president Max Tegmark said the worst-scoring companies — xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — hail from the U.S., China and Europe, respectively, describing the safety shortfalls as a global problem.

France 24

Existential safety was the weakest category across all nine companies. FLI president Max Tegmark said the worst-scoring companies — xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — hail from the U.S., China and Europe, respectively, describing the safety shortfalls as a global problem.

Mistral, included in the index for the first time, finished last and disputed the result, saying the evaluation framework was not suited to its open-weight model approach. The FLI noted that Mistral, along with Alibaba, xAI and DeepSeek, did not respond to its survey.

Mistral, included in the index for the first time, finished last and disputed the result, saying the evaluation framework was not suited to its open-weight model approach. The FLI noted that Mistral, along with Alibaba, xAI and DeepSeek, did not respond to its survey.

The Straits Times #

BigGo Finance #

WBUR #

Seoul Economic Daily #

Inside AI Policy #

Axios #

Time #

Future of Life Institute #

Let's Data Science #

International AI Safety Report #

Metaculus #

The Future of Life Institute released its 2026 first-half AI Safety Index on July 7, evaluating nine major AI companies — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, Z.ai, Alibaba Cloud, xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — across six categories including risk assessment, existential safety and governance.

The Future of Life Institute released its 2026 first-half AI Safety Index on July 7, evaluating nine major AI companies — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, Z.ai, Alibaba Cloud, xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — across six categories including risk assessment, existential safety and governance.

Anthropic ranked first overall with a grade of C+, while OpenAI and Google DeepMind each received a C and Meta scored a D+. xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral all received failing grades, with not a single company earning an A or B in any category.

Anthropic ranked first overall with a grade of C+, while OpenAI and Google DeepMind each received a C and Meta scored a D+. xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral all received failing grades, with not a single company earning an A or B in any category.

Existential safety was the weakest category across all nine companies, with no firm scoring above a C-. FLI president Max Tegmark said the worst-scoring companies — xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — hail from the U.S., China and Europe, respectively, describing the safety shortfalls as a global problem.

Existential safety was the weakest category across all nine companies, with no firm scoring above a C-. FLI president Max Tegmark said the worst-scoring companies — xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral — hail from the U.S., China and Europe, respectively, describing the safety shortfalls as a global problem.

Mistral, included in the index for the first time, finished last and disputed the result, saying the evaluation framework was not suited to its open-weight model approach. The FLI noted that Mistral, along with Alibaba, xAI and DeepSeek, did not respond to its survey. China's regulatory environment, where binding national rules rather than voluntary pledges govern AI firms, may partly explain the limited engagement from Chinese companies.

Mistral, included in the index for the first time, finished last and disputed the result, saying the evaluation framework was not suited to its open-weight model approach. The FLI noted that Mistral, along with Alibaba, xAI and DeepSeek, did not respond to its survey. China's regulatory environment, where binding national rules rather than voluntary pledges govern AI firms, may partly explain the limited engagement from Chinese companies.

AI safety is a complex, evolving field with no universal standard — terms like alignment, red-teaming and risk thresholds mean different things to different developers. Grading frontier labs on governance without accounting for the technical nuance behind safeguards, evaluations and deployment contexts oversimplifies a deeply layered challenge. A glossary of competing definitions isn't a failure of the industry — it reflects how genuinely hard this problem is.

AI safety is a complex, evolving field with no universal standard — terms like alignment, red-teaming and risk thresholds mean different things to different developers. Grading frontier labs on governance without accounting for the technical nuance behind safeguards, evaluations and deployment contexts oversimplifies a deeply layered challenge. A glossary of competing definitions isn't a failure of the industry — it reflects how genuinely hard this problem is.

Nine of the biggest AI labs just got graded on safety and governance — and the results are embarrassing. Anthropic led the pack with a C+, three labs outright failed, and nobody earned anything close to a passing mark. Frontier AI buyers can't just take model cards at face value anymore; they need hard answers on risk thresholds, external testing access and incident reporting before deploying these systems.

Nine of the biggest AI labs just got graded on safety and governance — and the results are embarrassing. Anthropic led the pack with a C+, three labs outright failed, and nobody earned anything close to a passing mark. Frontier AI buyers can't just take model cards at face value anymore; they need hard answers on risk thresholds, external testing access and incident reporting before deploying these systems.

AI: Safety and Regulations

Artificial Intelligence

Global AI industry falls short on safety, think-tank warns

Top AI Firms Earn Failing Grades on Safety Index

Science & technology

Nine of the biggest AI labs just got graded on safety and governance — and the results are embarrassing. Anthropic led the pack with a C+, three labs outright failed, and nobody earned anything close to a passing mark. Frontier AI buyers can't just take model cards at face value anymore; they need hard answers on risk thresholds, access to external testing and incident reporting before deploying these systems.

Nine of the biggest AI labs just got graded on safety and governance — and the results are embarrassing. Anthropic led the pack with a C+, three labs outright failed, and nobody earned anything close to a passing mark. Frontier AI buyers can't just take model cards at face value anymore; they need hard answers on risk thresholds, access to external testing and incident reporting before deploying these systems.

AI safety is a complex, evolving field with no universal standard — terms like alignment, red-teaming and risk thresholds mean different things to different developers. Grading frontier labs on governance without accounting for the technical nuance behind safeguards, evaluations and deployment contexts oversimplifies a deeply layered challenge.

AI safety is a complex, evolving field with no universal standard — terms like alignment, red-teaming and risk thresholds mean different things to different developers. Grading frontier labs on governance without accounting for the technical nuance behind safeguards, evaluations and deployment contexts oversimplifies a deeply layered challenge.

There's a 33% chance that the U.S. government will maintain a public list of incidents related to AI safety on Jan. 1, 2030, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

There's a 33% chance that the U.S. government will maintain a public list of incidents related to AI safety on Jan. 1, 2030, according to the Metaculus prediction community.

Top AI Firms Earn Failing Grades on FLI Safety Index

Top AI Firms Earn Failing Grades on FLI Safety Index

The Spin

Metaculus Prediction

The Controversies

Andreessen

Ng

LeCun

Mitchell

Li

Bengio

Musk

Altman

Hinton

Amodei

Yudkowsky

LeCun

Marcus

Bengio

Hinton

Hassabis

Altman

Amodei

Musk

Go Deeper

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Top AI Firms Earn Failing Grades on FLI Safety Index

Top AI Firms Earn Failing Grades on FLI Safety Index

The Spin

Metaculus Prediction

The Controversies

Andreessen

Ng

LeCun

Mitchell

Li

Bengio

Musk

Altman

Hinton

Amodei

Yudkowsky

LeCun

Marcus

Bengio

Hinton

Hassabis

Altman

Amodei

Musk

Go Deeper

Sign Up for Our Free NewslettersSign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters