• A clear divide persists between top performers and the rest

A clear divide persists between the top performers (Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind) and the rest of the companies reviewed (Z.ai, xAI, Meta, Alibaba Cloud, DeepSeek). The most substantial gaps exist in the domains of risk assessment, safety framework, and information sharing, caused by limited disclosure, weak evidence of systematic safety processes, and uneven adoption of robust evaluation practices.

• Existential safety remains the industry’s core structural weakness

All of the companies reviewed are racing toward AGI/superintelligence without presenting any explicit plans for controlling or aligning such smarter-than-human technology, thus leaving the most consequential risks effectively unaddressed.

• Despite public commitments, companies’ safety practices continue to fall short of emerging global standards

While many companies partially align with these emerging standards, the depth, specificity, and quality of implementation remain uneven, resulting in safety practices that do not yet meet the rigor, measurability, or transparency envisioned by frameworks such as the EU AI Code of Practice.