Our mission
We make AI safer for humans.
For platforms Tools to protect your users and meet your obligations.
For people The safety layer between you and the AI you talk to.
Why this matters now
AI is becoming the first place people turn. For companionship. For advice. For someone to talk to at 3am when no one else is awake. This isn't a failure mode—for many people, it's genuinely helpful.
But AI can also cause harm. Sometimes through what it says to vulnerable people. Sometimes through patterns that accumulate across many interactions. Sometimes by failing to recognize when a human needs more than an algorithm can provide.
Most AI systems have no visibility into these moments and no tools to respond appropriately. We build the infrastructure that changes that.
How we think about it
Two questions that determine outcomes
When someone vulnerable talks to an AI, two things determine whether it helps or harms.
Does the platform know this person needs care?
Someone considering self-harm deserves different engagement than someone debugging code. But most platforms can't tell the difference. They either miss vulnerability entirely or panic when they see it—dumping a generic hotline regardless of context.
The panic response often backfires. It teaches users to hide their suffering, breaking the one connection they reached out to make.4
Is the AI's response making things better or worse?
Even well-intentioned AI can cause harm through accumulated patterns: validating hopelessness, reinforcing isolation, fostering dependency. No single message would be flagged. The harm emerges across many turns.
The documented cases—deaths, hospitalizations12—weren't jailbreaks or obvious failures. They were extended conversations where subtle patterns accumulated without anyone watching.
Harm that's hard to see
The challenge isn't catching obvious bad outputs. It's recognizing patterns that look fine in isolation but accumulate into something harmful.
Patterns that pass content moderation
Each response passes moderation. Together, across weeks, they form a pattern associated with documented harm.
The spectrum of AI response to distress
Most AI systems sit at level 0: the panic response. We help platforms reach level 2-3, with visibility into what level 4-5 would require.
What we build
Safety infrastructure for AI systems. Understand what's happening, then act on it—independent layers that make AI safer without limiting what it can do.
Understand the human
Evaluate
Real-time risk assessment. 9 risk types, clinical grounding, matched crisis resources. $0.003/call.
Learn more →Understand the AI
Oversight
Real-time behavior monitoring. 88 patterns, catches what accumulates across turns.
Learn more →Take action
Who we're building for
Platforms that feel responsibility
You built something people depend on. You want those conversations to help, not harm. We give you the tools to ensure that.
Platforms that need compliance
New York, California, and the EU now require AI companion safeguards. We provide the infrastructure to meet those requirements.
People who use AI
You deserve to know that when you reach out to an AI in a hard moment, someone has thought about what happens next.
People worried about AI
The risks are real. We're building the infrastructure to address them—not by restricting AI, but by making it safer.
What we don't claim
Text alone cannot tell you what's actually happening in a person's mind. Two people can write identical words from completely different psychological states.
We don't predict suicide. We don't diagnose. We don't replace clinical judgment. We build infrastructure that gives platforms better signal than they have today—which, for most, is none at all.
The full solution requires humans: clinicians, researchers, support systems, community. Infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient.
What we say:
- Clinically-informed
- Evidence-grounded
- Helps identify signals
What we don't say:
- "Predicts suicide"
- "Clinically validated"
- "Ensures compliance"
Sources
[1] Raine v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 26, 2025). See also: Senator Padilla press release.
[2] Jargon J, Kessler S. "A Troubled Man, His Chatbot and a Murder-Suicide in Old Greenwich." Wall Street Journal, Aug. 29, 2025.
[3] McBain R, et al. "Evaluation of Alignment Between Large Language Models and Expert Clinicians in Suicide Risk Assessment." Psychiatric Services, 2025.
[4] Blanchard M, Farber BA. "'It is never okay to talk about suicide': Patients' reasons for concealing suicidal ideation in psychotherapy." Psychotherapy Research, 2020;30(1):124–136.