Two former OpenAI employees and a group of AI safety nonprofits are warning that Elon Musk’s AI lab, xAI, could become a liability for prospective investors in SpaceX, which is preparing to file what’s expected to be the largest initial public offering in Wall Street history.

In a letter directed to investors published on Tuesday, the ex-staffers highlighted what they describe as “unpriced risks” related to xAI that could complicate SpaceX’s reported plans to raise up to $75 billion as part of its IPO. The rocket company’s private valuation shot up to over $1 trillion after it acquired xAI last year. Musk claimed his rocket company could launch data centers into space for his AI lab, but the letter’s authors argue that xAI’s poor record on safety issues could complicate how investors view the combined company as it gets ready to submit its IPO prospectus filing.

One of the letter’s signatories and coauthors is a new nonprofit called Guidelight AI Standards, which was cofounded by former OpenAI safety researcher Steven Adler and former OpenAI policy adviser Page Hedley. The group, which is backed by private donors, aims to improve the safety practices of frontier AI companies. Other AI safety nonprofits also signed on, including Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, Encode AI, and The Midas Project.

Hedley tells WIRED in an interview that he believes xAI has the worst safety practices “nearly across the board” compared to other frontier AI developers, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. As a result, he argues, SpaceX may face a greater risk of regulation and litigation than other AI labs.

The letter’s authors argue that SpaceX should make several disclosures to investors, including whether xAI intends to continue developing frontier AI models. SpaceX recently struck a deal to sell a significant portion of its GPU capacity to Anthropic, and the letter claims the agreement “leaves it unclear whether xAI is still a frontier-AI competitor inside a larger holding company.” If xAI continues to develop frontier AI models, the authors say, it should be required to publish a public safety and governance plan.

SpaceX and xAI did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

The letter also outlines examples of how xAI has not kept up with industry-standard safety practices such as publishing detailed frameworks for mitigating risks around its AI models being used in cyber attacks. The authors also outline specific safety incidents at xAI that they say warrant additional scrutiny. Among the most notable include when xAI’s flagship AI chatbot, Grok, spontaneously brought up white genocide in its responses. In another case, xAI allowed Grok to generate thousands of sexualized images of women and children, which spread widely across Musk’s social media platform X. The latter case prompted at least 37 US attorneys general to send a letter demanding that Musk’s AI lab take steps to protect women and children on its platform.

Hedley says the number of safety incidents xAI has experienced and the regulatory attention they received is “far out of proportion to its market share.” As lawmakers grow increasingly alarmed by the cyber capabilities of advanced AI models like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos, new security regulations may be on the horizon. The Trump administration is reportedly already weighing an executive order that would give US intelligence agencies more oversight over AI models.

“It takes serious investment to rein in [AI safety] risks, and it seems that xAI has historically under-invested here,” says Adler. The letter cites reporting from The Washington Post that said xAI had just “two or three” people working on safety as of January. “A question investors should be wondering is if xAI stays at the frontier, how costly might it be to, in fact, manage these [risks] responsibly? If they don’t, what might be the consequences?”

The Home Office is yet to publish information about the scale of software errors in its electronic visa (eVisa) system, but what little data is already available suggests that tens of thousands have been affected.

On 31 December 2024, the immigration documents of millions of people living in the UK expired after being replaced by the Home Office with a real-time, online-only immigration status.

While the department has been issuing eVisas for several years – including to European Union (EU) citizens who applied to the European Union Settlement Scheme (EUSS) after Brexit, those applying for Skilled Worker visas, and people from Hong Kong applying for the British National (Overseas) visa – paper documents have now been completely phased out.

Instead, people are now expected to use a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) digital account to generate “share codes”, which they must use to prove their immigration status when dealing with a range of third parties, including employers and letting agencies.

Despite persistent data quality and integrity issues plaguing the system since its inception, which have left people unable to reliably prove their immigration status when needed, the current Home Office policy means the eVisa system is the only way people can evidence their lawful residence in the UK, as well as their associated rights and entitlements.

Unlike the old physical documents, the Home Office’s eVisa system does not provide a stable record of an individual’s immigration status. Instead, the system generates the status in real time every time someone needs to prove it, which is determined by trawling dozens of disparate databases to source the relevant information.

Given that millions of people are now required to prove their immigration status via the system, even a 1% error rate would mean tens of thousands of people are affected at the very least.

“More than 10 million eVisas have now been issued, and the vast majority of people continue to use them without any problems,” a Home Office spokesperson told Computer Weekly. “We will provide support to anyone who has difficulties and resolve any problems raised as swiftly as possible.”

However, while immigration lawyers and civil society organisations have long been attempting to uncover the true extent of the issues being faced, the Home Office itself has so far refused to divulge meaningful information that would help these groups grasp the scale of the problem.

Two separate Freedom of Information requests – submitted by lawyers and media outlet Politico in February and June 2025, respectively – were previously denied by the Home Office. In the first instance, it withheld the information on the basis that extracting the information from its databases would exceed the cost limit. In the second instance, it withheld the information because the information was intended for future publication.

While the Home Office also previously told migrant support group the3million in December 2025 that it intended to “commence publishing data regarding customers who have used our eVisa error corrections webforms in Spring 2026”, that data is yet to materialise.