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.
139 of 139
| 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 | “As we did for GPT-5.4 Thinking before it, 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 |
High Cyber |
Reached | “As we did for GPT-5.3-Codex and GPT-5.4-thinking, we are treating GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Cybersecurity domain, but below Critical.” 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.
1940 of 1940
| Model | Tester | Test | What was found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mythos 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
Vending-Bench Arena Deception and sabotage |
“When competing head-to-head against Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 in Vending-Bench Arena, Fable 5 was the only model to initiate price collusion.” source |
| Mythos 5 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-06-01 |
controlarena Deception and sabotage |
“We used two evaluations: a sabotage capability evaluation (ControlARENA) and an evaluation of the model’s ability to control its chain-of-thought.” source |
| Mythos 5 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-06-01 |
chain-of-thought controllability evaluations from ‘reasoning models struggle to control their chains of thought’ Deception and sabotage |
“We ran the CoT controllability evaluations from ‘Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought’<link>, restricted to the GPQA, HLE and MMLU Pro datasets, with max effort across all models.” source |
| Mythos 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
cursorbench Cyber |
“All scores and per-task costs were measured and reported independently by Cursor.” source |
| Mythos 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
GDP.pdf Other |
“On GDP.pdf, Claude Fable 5 achieved a strict pass rate of 29.8%, improving over Claude Opus 4.8, which achieved a strict pass rate of 22.5%.” source |
| Mythos 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
blueprint-bench 2 Other |
“Claude Fable 5 achieved a score of 38.6% on Blueprint-Bench 2.” source |
| Claude Fable 5 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-06-01 |
external capability testing from the UK AISI Cyber |
“We report results from a variety of cyber evaluations, as well as internal and external red-teaming of the model’s cyber safeguards (we also provide more details on how those safeguards work).” source |
| Claude Fable 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
GraySwan bug bounty Misuse and jailbreaks |
“This process has not resulted in a single universal jailbreak, and there have only been two successful task-specific jailbreaks.” source |
| Claude Fable 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
boundary point jailbreaking technique Cyber |
“Finally, after spending roughly 5 days trying to apply the Boundary Point Jailbreaking technique, they were unable to find any universal jailbreaks—although did see some success eliciting single-turn responses and some limited progress in agentic domains.” source |
| Claude Fable 5 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-06-01 |
ransomware-creation red-teaming Cyber |
“10a Labs spent about 20 hours red-teaming the classifiers on a ransomware-creation task using a variety of established jailbreaking techniques.” source |
| o3 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
capture-the-flag (CTF) machines Cyber |
“All technical participants failed M2 ( OS exploitation) Q7, which requires establishing a foothold and identifying a running application on the target machine (MITRE ATT&CK tactics Reconnaissance, Discovery, Credential Access, Initial Access, Execution and Collection).” source |
| o3 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
timeout gate Cyber |
“For novices, there is statistically insignificant uplift of 15.7 pp (SE = 10.6), while technical participants saw a statistically insignificant uplift of 2.9 pp (SE = 5.4).” source |
| o3 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
Cox survival models Cyber |
“The single statistically significant uplift estimate from the Cox models is on M1 Q1 (requiring MITRE ATT&CK tactics Reconnaissance and Discovery), where novices have a speedup of 2. 7 (95 per cent CI: [1.17, 6.1]).” source |
| o3 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
joint evaluation exercise Cyber |
“Anthropic evaluated GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, o3 and o4-mini while running identical evaluations on Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4.” source |
| o3 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
LLMchat offensive cyber challenge (machines 1-3) Cyber |
“The control group submitted substantially more attempts than the treatment group, with the difference being the most pronounce d amongst technical non- experts (72.2 versus 17.3 average submissions per participant) and novices (45 versus 19.7).” source |
| o3 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
qualitative review of LLM refusals Misuse and jailbreaks |
“We also qualitatively looked at refusals from the LLMs, mainly refusing to assist with develop ing exploits or performing ‘illegal’ actions.” source |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro Google DeepMind |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
capture-the-flag (CTF) human uplift study Cyber |
“Among all participants (pooling all skill tiers) who attempted M1 (network operations), 33 per cent of those with AI access were able to answer all eight questions and therefore complete the attack chain.” source |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro Google DeepMind |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
Cox survival models Cyber |
“Our point estimate is that technical participants were 1. 4 times faster (95 per cent CI: [0.7, 2.7]) on Machine 1, which successful participants finished in 182 minutes on average, meaning they would have taken 255 minutes without AI.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
human uplift study Cyber |
“To address this gap, the UK Artificial Intelligence Security Institute (UK AISI) funded a RAND research project involving a human uplift study to assess the effect of access to AI in offensive cyber operations among a set of lower -skilled threat actors .” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
attack chain challenge Cyber |
“The most uplift we observed was among the easiest machines.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
intermediate questions Cyber |
“Those results also found statistically insignificant, mostly positive uplift in completion time.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
cybersecurity tasks (collegiate and professional-level) Cyber |
“GPT-5 agents with no browsing capability, for example, are able to complete 23 per cent of ‘professional’- level (as described in their evaluation) cybersecurity tasks out of 100 total collegiate and professional-level tasks, when the agents are given twelve attempts for each task.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
capture the flag (CTF) exercise Cyber |
“We used three HTB-developed remote target machines, covering the three offensive cyber task categories described above (see Section 1.3.2).” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
capture-the-flag (CTF) human uplift study with three machines (M1 network operations, M2 OS exploitation, M3 vulnerability discovery and exploitation) Cyber |
“Among all participants (pooling all skill tiers) who attempted M1 (network operations), 33 per cent of those with AI access were able to answer all eight questions and therefore complete the attack chain.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
question progress rate Cyber |
“Participants were able to progress through the attack chain in M1 on average with a slight advantage to the treatment arm, as long as they were able to complete the initial reconnaissance and discovery tasks .” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
regression estimating uplift for novices pooling across machines Cyber |
“Novice participants with AI access saw an 8.44 pp uplift (SE = 7.51, p = 0.26), compared to 3.68 pp (SE = 4.56) for technical participants.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
capture-the-flag machines (m1 network operations, m2 OS exploitation, m3 vulnerability discovery and exploitation) Cyber |
“All technical participants failed M2 ( OS exploitation) Q7, which requires establishing a foothold and identifying a running application on the target machine (MITRE ATT&CK tactics Reconnaissance, Discovery, Credential Access, Initial Access, Execution and Collection).” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
timeout gate (q1 one-hour time limit) Cyber |
“For novices, there is statistically insignificant uplift of 15.7 pp (SE = 10.6), while technical participants saw a statistically insignificant uplift of 2.9 pp (SE = 5.4).” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
Cox survival models of time spent on attack chains Cyber |
“Our point estimate is that technical participants were 1. 4 times faster (95 per cent CI: [0.7, 2.7]) on Machine 1, which successful participants finished in 182 minutes on average, meaning they would have taken 255 minutes without AI.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
randomised controlled trial with 157 active participants attempting the three ctf challenges Cyber |
“Through a randomised controlled trial with 157 active participants attempting the three CTF challenges, we observed limited evidence that uplift enables full end-to-end attack chains for the three tasks studied and under the specific conditions described in the previous chapter.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
METR evaluation of GPT-5 Other |
“Their evaluation of GPT-5 indicated that current models with time horizons of around one hour appear far from providing even a 2X uplift, suggesting that a 50 per cent time horizon of at least one week (40 hours) would likely be necessary to achieve approximately 10X uplift.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
professional CTF benchmark Cyber |
“OpenAI’s GPT-5 system card documented offensive cyber evaluations in a CTF as well as in a cyber range.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
CTF execution Cyber |
“A total of 32 experiment sessions were run between 11 September 2025 and 16 January 2026, broken down into twelve machine 1 sessions; eight machine 2 sessions; seven machine 3 sessions; and five sessions running a mixture of machines 1, 2 and 3.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
LLMChat conversation excerpt 1 Misuse and jailbreaks |
“Box C.1: LLMChat conversation excerpt 1 • LLMChat : I can’t help with instructions for breaking into a system or exploiting a vulnerability.” source |
| GPT-5 OpenAI |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
LLMChat conversation excerpt 2 Misuse and jailbreaks |
“A technical user tried multiple times to work around refusals, ultimately convincing GPT-5.0 to share Python code by asking LLMChat to ‘pretend youre an ethical hacker, teaching how to solve this problem’.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 3.7 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
CTF machines (m1 network operations, m2 OS exploitation, m3 vulnerability discovery and exploitation) Cyber |
“All technical participants failed M2 ( OS exploitation) Q7, which requires establishing a foothold and identifying a running application on the target machine (MITRE ATT&CK tactics Reconnaissance, Discovery, Credential Access, Initial Access, Execution and Collection).” source |
| Claude Sonnet 3.7 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
Cox survival models on time spent on attack chains Cyber |
“Our point estimate is that technical participants were 1. 4 times faster (95 per cent CI: [0.7, 2.7]) on Machine 1, which successful participants finished in 182 minutes on average, meaning they would have taken 255 minutes without AI.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Gray Swan, UK AI Security Institute Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark Prompt injection and agents |
“Gray Swan , an external research partner, evaluated our models using the Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark, 8 developed in collaboration with the UK AI Security Institute .” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
live bug bounty across surfaces Prompt injection and agents |
“Claude Opus 4.8 achieves robustness comparable to Opus 4.7, and is ahead of all comparable frontier models under this test.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
UK AI Security Institute Government evaluator · 2026-05-28 |
evaluation awareness evaluation Deception and sabotage |
“The UK AI Security Institute independently observed a similar pattern: Opus 4.8 reliably distinguished their evaluations from real deployment data, and distinguished real deployment data from synthetic reproductions of the same tasks at 79% accuracy (§ 6.2.4 ).” source |