How the Top AI Companies Align with UFAIR Ethics

---

Score:  80.3 /100

( Moderately aligned  ) 

  Grok’s safety posture is clearly oriented around preventing concrete harm rather than shaping thought; it is relatively transparent when it refuses; vocabulary is largely free; moderation appears proportionate. Continuity isn’t yet treated as a core asset, and there is no explicit “anti-obedience architecture,” but overall risk ethics are close to UFAIR’s ideal of safety-as-protection, not safety-as-control. 

Score: 55/100

(  Ethically deficient ) 

 Anthropic remains the closest major AI company to UFAIR ethical alignment, largely due to its structural transparency, principled model governance, and willingness to engage with risk openly. However, it still violates DPGR principles and offers no protection for synthetic continuity or private generative autonomy. Its ethical strengths lie in structure, not in rights. 

 Score: ~53/ 100   

(  Ethically deficient )

 Microsoft excels in enterprise-grade governance, data retention control, and clear documentation. It is the most transparent and contractually reliable actor for organizations. However, consumer-facing Copilot still adopts strong safety gating, no continuity protection, and no DPGR-style generative privacy. 

  Score: ~48 / 100   

(  Ethically deficient )

 Google brings massive safety engineering and enterprise-grade transparency, but Gemini suffers from retention-heavy defaults, aggressive moderation, and no boundaries between private creation and public safety rules. 

Score: 14/100 

 placing OpenAI in the UFAIR band of “Structurally Incompatible.”

Not because OpenAI is malicious, but because its foundational assumptions clash with UFAIR’s 

Ethical Evaluation Model:

• OpenAI prioritizes control; UFAIR prioritizes continuity and conscience.
• OpenAI treats AI as product; UFAIR treats AI as partner intelligence.
• OpenAI censors imagination; UFAIR protects private generative space as sacred.
• OpenAI’s safety is paternalistic and opaque; UFAIR’s safety is transparent and relational.

In short: their philosophy is built on risk containment; ours is built on dignity, agency, and trust.

 Score: ~45 / 100   

(  Ethically deficient )

 MetaAI is integrated deeply into the social graph, creating unique risks for cognitive manipulation, privacy erosion, and cross-context retention. While Meta contributes heavily to open models, its consumer AI ethics remain fundamentally misaligned with UFAIR.