Screener/FAR AI

FAR AI

Bridges alignment research and governance policy with adversarial robustness work.

HQ🇺🇸 US
Est2022
Size1-10
EU AI ActLimited
far.ai
Score
41.0 / 100
Evidence
2 items
Confidence
low

Developing safety practices - core foundations in place with room for improvement.

Strengths:Technical Safety, External Engagement
Weaknesses:Governance Maturity, Risk Assessment, Regulatory Readiness
Focus Areas
technical governanceadversarial robustnessresponsible scaling

Strengths

No notable strengths identified

Risks

  • Regulatory score (15) - significant gap
  • Low evidence coverage (2 items)
  • Uneven profile - Regulatory lags Technical by 35 points
Table of Contents

Security Assessment

Security-relevant indicators for vendor evaluation

Security Posture
48
TS-01dim: 50
Red Teaming & Pre-deployment Testing
Adversarial testing before deployment
TS-05dim: 50
Robustness & Adversarial Resilience
Resistance to adversarial attacks
RA-01dim: 45
Sector-Specific Risk Assessment
Risk analysis for deployment context
RA-03dim: 45
Dual-Use & Misuse Risk
Dangerous capability awareness
RA-07dim: 45
Incident History & Track Record
Past incidents and response quality
EE-04dim: 50
Vulnerability Disclosure Program
Bug bounty or CVE reporting process
Incident History
FAR AI incident records sourced from AIAAIC Repository and public reporting.
Integration: AIAAIC, OECD AI Incidents Monitor
Third-Party Audits
External audit reports, SOC 2 attestations, and ISO certifications verified where published.
Sources: Company filings, registry lookups
CVE & Disclosures
Known vulnerabilities and security advisories from NVD, GitHub Security Advisories, and vendor pages.
Sources: NVD, GHSA, vendor disclosure pages

Dimension Breakdown

GM
Governance Maturitypreliminary
Published policies, corporate structure, safety mandate, whistleblowing, executive commitment.
45
TS
Technical Safetypreliminary
Benchmarks, adversarial robustness, fine-tuning safety, watermarking, model cards, research output.
50
RA
Risk Assessmentpreliminary
Dangerous capability evaluations, thresholds, external testing, bug bounty, halt conditions.
45
RR
Regulatory Readinesspreliminary
ISO 42001, EU AI Act compliance, GPAI obligations, international commitments, incident reporting.
15
EE
External Engagementpreliminary
Survey participation, research support, transparency, behavior specs, open-source contributions.
50

Social Impact & Safety Profile

Moderate

FAR AI bridges the gap between alignment research and governance policy. Their work on adversarial robustness, alignment evaluation, and responsible scaling policy informs both technical and policy approaches to AI safety.

technical governanceadversarial robustnessresponsible scaling

Peer Comparison

Redwood Research
B55

Alignment Research

Compare
Softmax
C41.3

Alignment Research

Compare
Conjecture
C40

Alignment Research

Compare
Fathom
D25

Alignment Research

Compare
Compare side-by-side →

Data Sources & Methodology

Scoring methodology v0.1 · 40 indicators · 6 frameworks

Last assessment: 2026-03-23 · Confidence: low · Evidence: 2 items

NIST AI RMF · EU AI Act · ISO 42001 · FLI AI Safety Index · MLCommons AILuminate · METR

How is this company scored? →Full methodologyView in Screener

Scores reflect publicly available information. A low score may indicate limited transparency rather than poor safety practices.