Microsoft AI
Sources used: First-hand material.
The map position is our interpretation of the public statements below. Read the method.
Position, range and evidence details
Preferred pace: 38; stated catastrophic-risk concern: 12. These are layout units, not percentages or rankings.
Pace range: 0 to 68; concern range: 0 to 59. Ranges show alternative editorial interpretations, not statistical confidence intervals.
Evidence clarity: medium. Basis: primary. Implementation: announced-commitment.
Record status: Published record
What this status means
This is a published Atlas record with no open challenge recorded in this edition. It is not a guarantee that the sources are current or the interpretation is correct.
Status recorded: 2026-09-16. This is separate from the source-reading and actor-review dates.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2026-09-14
At least one source was published within the 18-month window.
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Open on the map Reading notes · Structured record
What this position covers
Microsoft AI model development, not the entire Microsoft group. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What to keep in mind
A human-control code is not a catastrophe probability. The consultation is not a verified slowdown. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What they say about the pace of AI
Plans continued model training and deployment guided by its code. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What they say about catastrophic risk
Makes retaining human control a central requirement. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
The wider picture
Plans continued model development under human-control commitments. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
How to read the company claim
The code describes limits and evaluation goals for MAI models. A public consultation and a published rule do not show how reliably a model follows the rule. [1]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
Share this page
https://theaiatlas.org/groups/microsoft-ai/
Download a share image · Vector image
Image previews are summaries. Keep the page link so readers can check the evidence.
Sources and what we read
1. Humanist AI in practice: A public consultation on our Code of Conduct for MAI Models
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2026-09-14
At least one source was published within the 18-month window.
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
A consultation and intended training/evaluation standards. Scope is Microsoft AI, not every Microsoft business.
Edition and machine-readable evidence
Content version 0.22.0. Evidence cutoff 2026-09-16; this does not mean every source was read on that day.
Pinned complete dataset · Complete evidence page · Agent consumption guide