Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1994 1993 1992 1991 1989 1986 1985 1984 1983 1979 1966 1965 1961 1960 1955 1952 1950 1872 1863 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
100 people, organisations and other records · 129 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
FAIF · December 2025 edition states a provision on the comparison question “Autonomy, self-improvement or AI research and development”, in a weaker form than the question’s criterion. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Provision Risk domain · provision ID comparison-d1-autonomy Subject version December 2025 edition · Publication date unknown · Effective date not established · Revised 2025-12-30 Date 2025-12-30 · revision Scope and limits Stated, partly: the passage has what the question’s criterion asks for, but in a weaker form than the criterion’s own words. Loss of control is a named risk category, but it is assessed through propensities (deception and sycophancy, with a MASK threshold; see “Other named domains”), not through autonomy, replication or AI research and development capability thresholds. The edition says scenarios of replication or preventing shutdown assume offensive cyber capabilities that it also tracks (PDF p. 2); automation of AI research and development appears only as a metric it may publish (PDF p. 8). What the edition states, paraphrased from the cited expression with its page. It is not evidence of implementation, compliance or effectiveness, and a shared question does not make two editions’ provisions equivalent.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework — December 2025 edition ↗ xAI · Publication date unknown
Archived copy, captured 2026-01-02: Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework — December 2025 edition ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase The edition says it addresses two main categories of AI risk: misuse by malicious actors, and loss of control.
Location in source PDF p. 1, 'Scope', first sentence
Machine-checked · 2026-10-27
Source details and check notes Authors xAI Version Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework December 2025 edition; revision date 2025-12-30. Version date 2025-12-30 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2026-01-02: Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework — December 2025 edition ↗ . Captured 3 days after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-01-02. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-18.Attribution xAI, Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework — December 2025 edition. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Explicit paraphrase, written on 2026-10-27 by an automated research assistant after re-reading the passage in the publisher copy, whose SHA-256 matches the copy retrieved on 2026-10-15. The comparison quoted the passage; it is given here as a paraphrase to keep the edition within the quotation limit. Human editorial review is pending. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. An exact framework edition states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), or a stated exception. The quoted text records what the edition says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.
Date. Comparison cell for this edition, dated by the edition’s revision date.
Record ID cmp-faif-2025-d1-autonomy