Small print.
Wide open.

Table of Contents

contributions,  advocacy,  or  support  of  political  organizations.  In  addition,  our  executives  and  other 
representatives have publicly expressed and may in the future publicly express views on AI policy, regulation, 
safety, and related social or political issues. As a result, we have experienced, and may continue to experience, 
increased visibility and may continue to be subject to heightened scrutiny or the risk of being disproportionately 
or  selectively  targeted  by  particular  governmental  bodies,  even  where  similarly  situated  companies  are  not, 
including through investigations or enforcement actions, the imposition or selective application of regulatory, 
licensing, or permitting requirements, adverse treatment in government procurement or provision of security 
clearances, or targeted immigration or visa actions affecting our personnel. As part of our political engagement, 
we  have  advocated  for,  and  will  likely  continue  to  advocate  for,  regulatory  approaches  or  industry  standards 
that  we  believe  promote  the  safe  and  responsible  development  of  AI  but  that  could  increase  our  compliance 
burdens,  limit  our  product  development  or  deployment  flexibility,  or  otherwise  slow  our  growth  relative  to 
competitors.

Our public positions, stated values, policy advocacy, or statements by our executives have attracted, and may 
continue to attract, criticism from influential political figures, industry participants, regulators, or other third 
parties,  particularly  in  politically  sensitive  or  polarized  environments,  which  could  shape  public  narratives  or 
regulatory perceptions of our business in ways that are unfavorable to us. For example, public statements by us 
or other industry participants regarding the safety of frontier AI development have been cited by governmental 
actors  to  support  litigation  or  regulatory  claims,  including  requests  for  injunctive  relief  restricting  model 
development, and could be cited in future proceedings involving us. Such scrutiny or backlash could result in 
reputational harm, increased compliance or operating costs, investigations, enforcement actions, or restrictions 
on  our  operations,  any  of  which  could  adversely  affect  our  business,  financial  condition,  and  results  of 
operations.

If the use of our AI models results in harm, whether through use by malicious actors or misuse 
by  other  third  parties,  or  if  our  model  guardrails  or  safeguards  fail  to  prevent  such  misuse, 
our  reputation  and  brand,  business,  financial  condition,  and  results  of  operations  could  be 
adversely affected.

While  our  AI  models  are  designed  to  comply  with  our  AI  safety  and  usage  guidelines  and  be  broadly  safe, 
ethical,  and  helpful,  and  while  we  have  implemented  safety  measures  intended  to  anticipate,  identify,  and 
mitigate  potential  harmful  uses,  such  measures are  incomplete,  may  be  outdated  in  light  of  evolving  threat 
models, or may fail to identify or prevent all potential misuse of our models, and our models have been, and 
may  continue  to  be,  misused  or  manipulated  to  produce  harmful outputs  or  carry  out  harmful  actions. 
Malicious  actors  have  used,  and  may  continue  to  develop  novel  or  more  sophisticated  methods  to  use,  our 
models in ways that violate our usage policy or seek to circumvent our model guardrails or safeguards through 
techniques  such  as  prompt  injection,  adversarial  inputs,  or  other  methods,  and  use  our  models  to  engage  in 
harmful  activities,  including  developing  weapons,  generating  fraudulent  or  misleading  content,  conducting 
cyberattacks, perpetrating acts of violence, or to engage in activities that would otherwise be prohibited under 
our usage policy or in violation of applicable law. Our customer onboarding diligence varies by access channel, 
and we do not and in certain situations cannot uniformly verify the identity of those who access our models or 
of our customers’ end users, which may limit our ability to prevent access or recidivism by malicious actors or 
to enforce our usage policy or other policies.

Moreover, our safety and security controls, including automated classifiers and monitoring systems, depend on 
complex internal configurations that have failed, been misconfigured, or been inadvertently disabled, and may 
do  so  again  in  the  future  without  our  timely  detection.  Any  undetected  failure  of  our  safety  controls  could 
permit misuse that our safeguards are designed to prevent, and could result in real world harm, legal liability, 
regulatory or enforcement action, loss of customer trust, and reputational harm, any of which could adversely 
affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In  particular,  our  most  capable  models  have  demonstrated,  and  future  models  are  expected  to  demonstrate, 
capabilities  that  could  provide  meaningful  assistance  to  malicious  actors  seeking  to  develop  chemical, 
biological,  or  other  dangerous  weapons.  We  deploy  technical  safeguards,  including  automated  classifiers, 
specifically intended to detect and block these categories of misuse, but such safeguards are incomplete, may be 
outdated in light of evolving threat models, have been and may in the future again be circumvented, or may fail 
to  operate  as  intended.  Any  actual  or  perceived  use  of  our  models  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  such 
weapons  could  result  in  harm,  legal  liability,  regulatory  or  enforcement  action,  loss  of  government  and 

44