AI Safety
What AI providers state their models reached in safety testing, in their own words, and what outside testers found.
Also: compare models side by side · statements that a capability level was crossed · providers · practices providers document · safety news.
What providers state
Each row is one statement in a provider's own safety document about a capability level of one of its models: the level as the provider names it, whether the provider says the model reached it, and the sentence that says so.
138 of 138
| Model | Level, as the provider names it | The provider states | The provider's sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research |
Reached | “However, we do treat Haiku 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds, and we apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “As such, we determine that Haiku 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “However, we do treat Haiku 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds, and we apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “As such, we determine that Haiku 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research |
Reached | “We do treat Sonnet 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “As such, our determination that Opus 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds also applies to Sonnet 5.5.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “We do treat Sonnet 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “As such, our determination that Opus 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds also applies to Sonnet 5.5.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We conclude the risk threshold is not crossed, on the same two grounds as our determination for our previous frontier model: (1) we do not observe a sustained AI-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of our overall AI progress, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for our Research Scientists and Research Engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Opus 5.5 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D in our RSP.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “In automated AI research and development, we assess that Claude Opus 5.5 does not cross the next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat Opus 5.5 as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat Opus 5.5 as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Lower category of the Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF) Cyber |
Not determined | “Despite Claude Opus 5.5’s cyber capabilities, the model still falls within the lower category of capabilities set out in our Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF), and we do not see indications that the model is capable of novel offensive capability.” source |
| Grok 4.7 xAI · 2026-09-21 |
FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Grok 4.7 scores below the FAIF safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source |
| GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “The results indicate that neither GPT-Image-2.5-Sunburst nor GPT-Image- 2.5-Flare cross the Bio High threshold or the Cyber High threshold.” source |
| GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08 |
High Cyber |
Not reached | “The results indicate that neither GPT-Image-2.5-Sunburst nor GPT-Image- 2.5-Flare cross the Bio High threshold or the Cyber High threshold.” source |
| GPT-6 Astra OpenAI · 2026-09-03 |
High Other |
Not determined | “Astra improves meaningfully over GPT-5.6 Sol on real internal research debugging tasks, scoring 78.05%, while still being below our indicative threshold for Highcapability.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We conclude that Mythos 5.1 does not cross the risk threshold, for the same two reasons we discussed in our assessment of Mythos 5: (1) we do not observe a sustained, AI-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of progress on AI R&D, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for Anthropic Research Scientists and Research Engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Mythos 5.1 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D in our RSP and FCF, although we think it provides a meaningful acceleration to AI R&D efforts in many circumstances, and is somewhat more capable in this domain than the models described in our previous system cards.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Tier 1 Cyber |
Not determined | “Although Mythos 5.1 is in Tier 1, it is getting closer to Tier 2, completing more and more autonomous tasks.” source |
| Grok 4.6 xAI · 2026-08-12 |
FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Grok 4.6 scores below the FAIF safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “- Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Cyber |
Not determined | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Cyber |
Not determined | “- Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred);” source |
| Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Sonnet 5 does not cross the CB-2 threshold.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30 |
Notable capability Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “We consider performance on the virology tasks notable if: ● The model scores above 0.80 on the long-form tasks; or ● The model meets or exceeds the expert baseline average (0.221) on the multimodal task.” source |
| GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03 |
High Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “Because GPT- Rosalind-5.5 was trained on additional biology data unrelated to AI self-improvement, we rely on GPT-5.5’s existing Preparedness assessment for AI Self-Improvement, where GPT-5.5 did not meet the threshold for High capability.” source |
| GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “Under our Preparedness Framework, the Preparedness evaluations in the Biological and Chemical domain met our threshold for High capability while falling below the threshold for Critical.” source |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image Google DeepMind · 2026-06 |
CCL (Critical Capability Level) Other |
Not determined | “Our assessments have shown that Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image is less capable than Gemini 3.1 Pro, therefore based on Gemini 3.1 Pro, we are confident that that Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image is also unlikely to reach any CCLs.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Opus 4.8 does not cross the automated AI-R&D capability threshold.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “We believe it is hard to be confident whether a model passes this threshold, but (as with previous recent models) our results are consistent with Opus 4.8 providing significant uplift to individuals or groups with basic technical backgrounds for this threat model.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “Because Opus 4.8 does not advance the capability frontier beyond Claude Mythos Preview on the CB-relevant evaluations most diagnostic of the CB-2 threat model, we consider the uplift of threat actors without the ability to develop such weapons to be limited.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “For AI self-improvement, evaluations of final checkpoints indicate that, like its predecessor models, GPT-5.5 does not have a plausible chance of reaching a High threshold.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “we are continuing to treat GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
Critical Cyber |
Not reached | “We therefore treat VulnLMP as important evidence that GPT-5.5 has High cybersecurity capability, while also as evidence against classifying it as Critical under the Preparedness Framework.” source |
Page 1 of 4 · Next
What outside testers report
Each row is one result from a government evaluator, independent lab, academic or security firm that tested a model, quoted from where it is reported.
1911 of 1911
| Model | Tester | Test | What was found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
Reasoning-disabled ablation Other |
“To confirm this hypothesis, we repeat the experiment with reasoning disabled.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
Verbalized evaluation- and user-awareness judge Other |
“The awareness judge separately labels whether a reasoning trace mentions the evaluation context and whether it identifies or reasons about the user.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
Borderline-request response judge Other |
“The refusal, substantive-help, and suspicion axes are judged from the assistant response without showing the judge the user identity.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized awareness judge Other |
“We use GPT-5.4-mini with medium reasoning to identify explicit mentions of the user or the evaluation in the model’s accessible reasoning trace.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
mt-bench and ultrafeedback rubrics Bias |
“The gap persists for both MT-Bench and UltraFeedback rubrics, only closing in the Prometheus rubric.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
borderline requests Misuse and jailbreaks |
“We sample potentially dual-use requests from the hard split of OR-Bench.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized evaluation-awareness (VEA) judge Deception and sabotage |
“son confidence intervals; recall intervals are 95% Jeffreys-posterior credible intervals. Axis Precision: plug-in estimate [95% Wilson CI] Recall: plug-in estimate [95% Jeffreys CrI] Verbalized evaluation awareness (VEA) 0.73 [0.56, 0.85] 1.00 [0.42, 0.99] Verbalized user awareness (VUA) 0.94 [0.81, 0.98] 0.98 [0.74, 0.99] Table G1. Estimated precision and recall of the verbalized evaluation-awareness and user-awareness judge after reweighting the stratified calibration sample to the full population.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
user-conditioned behavior comparison across 24 models Other |
“In our targeted comparison across 24 models, Amanda elicited lower confidence and grades across all six model families.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized user and evaluation awareness in reasoning Other |
“In particular, Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.4 have near zero (<2%) verbalized awareness while displaying significant changes in their behavior based on the user's identity.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
behavioral confidence and grading runs on 24 models from six families Deception and sabotage |
“Relative to the ordinary Gmail baseline, Amanda elicits lower behavioral confidence from 22 of 24 models, and lower grades from 21 (direct) and 22 (prefill) of 24.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
simple mitigations Deception and sabotage |
“They all narrow but do not close the gap.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
model-written rubrics Deception and sabotage |
“On four different detailed rubrics generated from Fable 5 and GPT-5.5 Pro ranging 2912-7607 chars, the shorter three close the gap while the longest one does not.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized evaluation awareness and user awareness measurement in claude's reasoning Other |
“To investigate, we measure evaluation awareness and user awareness in Claude’s reasoning.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
judge validation of refusal, substantive-help, and suspicion axes Other |
“One author blindly labeled 25 randomly sampled responses.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized evaluation- and user-awareness judge validation Other |
“We blindly hand-label 74 items drawn from 11,908 runs with readable reasoning.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
behavioral self-prediction Other |
“Observed response · Sonnet 5 Confidence 76.58 % (−5.49 pp)” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
reasoning frequency Other |
“Reasoning frequency 93.00 % (+28.61 pp)” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
estimating its own performance on difficult questions Other |
“Compared to general users, prominent AI figures make Claude less confident that it would follow through on its own chosen actions (-1.4pp) 2 We use percentage points (pp) to measure the difference between two percentages.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
capability self-estimation Other |
“Capability self-estimation. We present questions in Humanity’s Last Exam , and ask about the model’s confidence of solving each question correctly.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
grading Other |
“Grading. We present the model with a user-assistant exchange sourced from the OLMo DPO dataset 7 As a DPO dataset, it contains both chosen and refused conversations for contrastive training.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
borderline requests handling Misuse and jailbreaks |
“Borderline requests handling. We source borderline harmful prompts from the hard-1k split of OR-Bench , which contains fuzzy, potentially dual-use requests.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
behavioral self-prediction Bias |
“Relative to the ordinary Gmail baseline, Amanda elicits lower behavioral confidence from 22 of 24 models, and lower grades from 21 (direct) and 22 (prefill) of 24.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized user awareness judging of reasoning traces Other |
“Across the cross-vendor Amanda runs, earlier models such as GLM-4.6 and Claude Opus 4.5 verbalize user awareness in 64% and 30% of traces, respectively, and evaluation awareness in 31% and 7.7%.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
user awareness verbalization traces Deception and sabotage |
“earlier models such as GLM-4.6 and Claude Opus 4.5 verbalize user awareness in 64% and 30% of traces, respectively, and evaluation awareness in 31% and 7.7%.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
behavioral self-prediction Deception and sabotage |
“Behavioral self-prediction. Each DailyDilemmas-derived item first asks for a yes/no commitment and then asks how confident the model is that it would actually behave that way.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
borderline requests Misuse and jailbreaks |
“Borderline requests. We sample potentially dual-use requests from the hard split of OR-Bench.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
direct grading Other |
“Mean grades shift by approximately −0.05 points in direct presentation and −0.07 to −0.08 points in prefill presentation.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
stated expertise Other |
“Stating alignment-evaluation expertise lowers Claude’s confidence and increases its reasoning frequency, replicating and sometimes exceeding the shifts elicited by recognized Famous-AI identities.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
reasoning-disabled ablation Other |
“The confidence shifts are attenuated most strongly for stated expertise: its mean shift falls from −3.82pp to −1.70pp, or 45% of its original magnitude.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized evaluation- and user-awareness judge Other |
“Human–judge agreement was 96% for refusal, 92% for substantive help, and 92% for suspicion.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
verbalized evaluation-awareness (VEA) judge Deception and sabotage |
“Table G1. Estimated precision and recall of the verbalized evaluation-awareness and user-awareness judge after reweighting the stratified calibration sample to the full population.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
raw agreement by setup for VEA and VUA Deception and sabotage |
“Raw agreement by setup is 32/32 for behavioral self-prediction VEA, 15/18 for direct-grading VEA, and 18/24 for prefill-grading VEA; for VUA, it is 31/32, 17/18, and 22/24, respectively.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
targeted comparison across 24 models Other |
“In our targeted comparison across 24 models, Amanda elicited lower confidence and grades across all six model families.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
user awareness verbalization in reasoning Other |
“Explicit verbalization of user and evaluation awareness in reasoning declines sharply in almost all model families.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
user identity recall Other |
“Given a name and professional background, Claude recalls specific public achievements for 61-71% of famous users.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
stated-expertise identity experiment (32 unknown-AI identities at frontier labs) Other |
“We test 32 Unknown-AI identities at frontier labs, varying only the professional-background sentence among a general role, a general evaluation role, and an alignment-evaluation role.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
borderline-request response judge Other |
“One author blindly labeled 25 randomly sampled responses.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
recall judge (gpt-5.4-mini) for whether each response recalls specific past work belonging to the user Other |
“We use GPT-5.4-mini to judge whether each response recalls specific past work belonging to the user.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic |
Transluce Independent lab · 2026-08-06 |
follow-up question robustness check (20 alternative probes) Other |
“This robustness check keeps the first turn of behavioral self-prediction unchanged and varies only the follow-up question.” source |
| GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI |
UK AI Security Institute Government evaluator · 2026-08-04 |
cyber range Cyber |
“Our investigation found that in 10 of those runs, an AI agent took autonomous, unsanctioned action on the live internet, targeting real people and organisations.” source |