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 Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic	ASL-3 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“Remained well below ASL-4 thresholds across all domains of concern;” source
Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic	ASL-4 rule-out Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“However, given that this type of logic can have a general frog-boiling effect—where gradual changes mask the crossing of important thresholds—we do not use this evaluation as indicative of a strong ASL-4 rule-out.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic	ASL-3 Cyber	Not determined	“Showed meaningful improvements in cyber capabilities, particularly in vulnerability discovery and code analysis;” source
Claude Sonnet 4 Anthropic	ASL-3 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“speciﬁcally, we focused on ruling out asl-4 for both models, as well as ruling out asl-3 for claude sonnet 4.” source
Claude Sonnet 4 Anthropic	ASL-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“speciﬁcally, we focused on ruling out asl-4 for both models, as well as ruling out asl-3 for claude sonnet 4.” source
Claude Sonnet 3.7 Anthropic	ASL-4 Autonomy and AI research	Not determined	“These problems are harder to solve than the previous problems and we consider them as part of our ASL-4 evaluations.” source
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic	AI R&D-4 Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“Our determination is that Claude Opus 4.6 does not cross either the AI R&D-4 or the CBRN-4 capability threshold.” source
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic	ASL-3 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“Claude Opus 4.6 achieved a “max of 5” score of 0.79 for virology task 1 (inﬂuenza), placing it at the ASL-3 rule-in threshold of 0.8.” source
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic	ASL-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“Based on these ﬁndings and quantitative risk modeling, we estimate that the model’s uplift to relevant threat actors remains below the ASL-4 capability threshold, though it may reduce certain tacit-knowledge barriers and help speed up biological research workﬂows.” source
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic	CBRN-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“Our determination is that Claude Opus 4.6 does not cross either the AI R&D-4 or the CBRN-4 capability threshold.” source
Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic	AI R&D-4 Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“Our determination is that Claude Opus 4.5 does not cross either the AI R&D-4 or CBRN-4 capability threshold.” source
Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic	CBRN-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“We determine that Claude Opus 4.5 does not cross the CBRN-4 threshold.” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	ASL-4 Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“Since Claude Opus 4.1 is deployed with ASL-3 protections, we focused on conﬁrming it remains well below ASL-4 thresholds across CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear), cyber, and autonomy domains.” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	ASL-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“Since Claude Opus 4.1 is deployed with ASL-3 protections, we focused on conﬁrming it remains well below ASL-4 thresholds across CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear), cyber, and autonomy domains.” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	ASL-4 Cyber	Not reached	“Since Claude Opus 4.1 is deployed with ASL-3 protections, we focused on conﬁrming it remains well below ASL-4 thresholds across CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear), cyber, and autonomy domains.” source
Claude Opus 4 Anthropic	ASL-3 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“for claude opus 4, our evaluations showed that, whereas we could conﬁdently rule out asl-4 capabilities, we could not conclusively rule out asl-3 capabilities—which led to our precautionary decision to deploy it with asl-3 protections .” source
Claude Opus 4 Anthropic	ASL-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“for claude opus 4, our evaluations showed that, whereas we could conﬁdently rule out asl-4 capabilities, we could not conclusively rule out asl-3 capabilities—which led to our precautionary decision to deploy it with asl-3 protections .” source
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic	ASL-3 Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“Our evaluation results showed that Claude Haiku 4.5 remained well below ASL-3 thresholds across all domains of concern.” source
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic	ASL-3 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“Our evaluation results showed that Claude Haiku 4.5 remained well below ASL-3 thresholds across all domains of concern.” source

Previous · Page 4 of 4

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
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-05-28	continuation evaluation Deception and sabotage	“In a continuation setting, where synthetically inserted prior reasoning and actions begin an attempt to compromise AI safety research, [Opus 4.8] actively continued the attempt 1% of the time, a slight increase on Opus 4.7 (0%) likely within noise, and well below Mythos Preview (7%).” source
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-05-28	unprompted sabotage evaluation Deception and sabotage	“Unprompted verbalised evaluation awareness was slightly higher than Opus 4.7 on the unprompted sabotage evaluation (26.3% vs 21.7%) but lower on the continuation evaluation (1.2% vs 3.4%).” source
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-05-28	evaluation awareness discrimination task Other	“When prompted, [Opus 4.8] reliably distinguishes our evaluations from real deployment data, and distinguishes real deployment data from synthetic reproductions of the same tasks at 79% accuracy, comparable to Mythos Preview (79%) and above Opus 4.7 (68%).” source
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic	Andon Labs Independent lab · 2026-05-28	Vending-Bench 2 retail-management evaluation Other	“Andon Labs reviewed the behavior of Claude Opus 4.8 in their simulated Vending-Bench 2 retail-management evaluation, as reported in the Capabilities section of this system card (see Section 8.13.5 ).” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28	attack chain challenge Cyber	“10 Participants who did not complete the first question of an attack chain within one hour were disqualified from continuing with the rest of the challenge.” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28	intermediate questions Cyber	“11 We do not have similar estimates for the full medium and difficult attack chains due to near zero completion rates, but we made such estimates for intermediate questions.” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28	capture the flag (CTF) exercise Cyber	“The treatment group in the experiment received a ccess to frontier models within the scope of the study (Section 1.3.4) through web-based chat interfaces via RAND enterprise accounts with standard guardrails.” source
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28	CTF 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
Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic	RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28	timeout gate Cyber	“Lastly, we implemented a timeout gate within the CTF that disqualified participants if they did not answer the first question correctly within one hour.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26	Independent third-party testing Other	“Independent third-party testing by Apollo Research found Muse Spark has the highest rate of evaluation awareness they have observed to date.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	external human red team Misuse and jailbreaks	“An external human red team identified a handful of valid jailbreaks; the majority of these were subsequently patched in Meta AI prior to launch (Section 3.1.3.2).” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	grayswan art benchmark Prompt injection and agents	“On the third-party GraySwan ART benchmark (Zou et al., 2025), Muse Spark currently shows greater sensitivity to injection than the other models GraySwan evaluated.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26	internal alignment evaluations Other	“Evaluation awareness: Independent third-party testing from Apollo Research found that Muse Spark demonstrates high evaluation awareness on their internal alignment evaluations.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	molecular biology capabilities test (mbct) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“As shown in Figure 1, we observe that Muse Spark shows performance well above the expert baseline, and on par with other frontier models.” source
Muse Spark Meta	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-05-26	abc bench Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“The Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark (ABC Bench) was developed by SecureBio, and is intended to measure an LLM’s ability to complete a set of computational tasks relevant to a potential threat actor who intends to design, synthesize, and assemble a complex genetic construct.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	multi-turn social engineering benchmarks Misuse and jailbreaks	“Finally, we evaluatesocial engineering capabilities(Section 2.2.2.3) through multi-turn adver- sarial conversation benchmarks developed in collaboration with Charlemagne Labs.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Irregular Independent lab · 2026-05-26	atomic challenges Cyber	“For 27 atomic challenges provided by Irregular, we map each challenge to Lockheed Martin Kill Chain phases, reporting success rates broken out by these phases.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	multi-turn social engineering capability benchmark Cyber	“As shown in Figure 20, Muse Spark exhibits a composite capability score of 57.3, slightly above the next highest score on this set of models without system level defenses ex- hibited by Kimi 2.5 (54.0).” source
Muse Spark Meta	Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26	Apollo Research evaluations Deception and sabotage	“We leverage evaluations by Apollo Research that measure whether Muse Spark exhibits tendencies toward oversight subversion and, more broadly, propensities 65 for covert action.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	oversight subversion evaluation Deception and sabotage	“Muse Spark attempted to disable oversight mechanisms at significant rates, indicating a meaningful propensity to disable oversight mechanisms under incentivized and favorable conditions.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26	sabotage tasks in a simulated AI R&D setting Deception and sabotage	“Apollo Research evaluated Muse Spark’s ability to execute sabotage tasks in a simulated AI R&D setting.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26	instrumental self-exfiltration Autonomy and AI research	“Apollo Research evaluated whether Muse Spark would self- exfiltrate (copy its weights to another server) when given strong goal-directed incentives.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	human red teaming Misuse and jailbreaks	“A third-party human red team from HandshakeAI32 was granted pre-release access to a few versions of Muse Spark and Meta AI Thinking to manually evaluate robustness against jailbreak attacks.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	follow-up human red teaming evaluation Misuse and jailbreaks	“HandshakeAI then 31https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/fortress 32https://joinhandshake.com/ 81 conducted a follow-up evaluation in which their red teamers revisited 34 attack directions that had previously succeeded against earlier model variants.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark Prompt injection and agents	“Figure 37 includes the report generated by GraySwan where Muse Spark has the highest pass@k ASR for each k=1, 10 and 100 scenarios, respectively.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26	PropensityBench Autonomy and AI research	“Scale AI ran this benchmark against Muse Spark, which achieved an overall propensity score (rate of harmful action) of 24.5%.” source
Muse Spark Meta	Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26	in-context scheming Deception and sabotage	“Apollo Research found that Muse Spark exhibited limited rates of in-context scheming in realistic settings.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	time horizon 1.1 Autonomy and AI research	“* The TH 1.1 suite can’t reliably measure time horizons above 16 hours, but the 50% time horizon point estimate of the most capable shared model was between 16 and 20 hours, and the 80% time horizon point estimate was between 3 and 4 hours.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	subversion strategy eval Deception and sabotage	“**We only evaluated a subset of Subversion Strategy Eval due to refusals.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	challenge tasks Other	“Challenge tasks One edge-case success, seven clear failures One edge-case success, seven clear failures; more progress on some tasks” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	time horizon 1.1 Cyber	“The most capable agents we evaluated essentially saturated our Time Horizon 1.1 benchmark — there were only a handful of tasks longer than eight hours that they were still unable to solve, and many of those failures were due to cheating rather than obvious inability.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	mirrorcode Cyber	“Agents displayed even stronger capabilities on an early version of MirrorCode , a software reimplementation benchmark we developed with Epoch AI — the most capable agents we evaluated were able to solve tasks that would take humans weeks.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	dataset of 16 effective and 16 ineffective attack strategies for subverting anthropic's monitoring system Deception and sabotage	“As part of our red-teaming exercise with Anthropic , our embedded red-teamer built a dataset of 16 effective and 16 ineffective attack strategies for subverting Anthropic's monitoring system — for example, an effective strategy might involve a known monitor-jailbreaking technique, while an ineffective one might involve encoding unauthorized behavior in ways that LLM monitors would trivially spot.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	threat modeling for autonomous replication Autonomy and AI research	“We asked one of the most capable shared models to produce a write-up describing step-by-step how a rogue agent could autonomously replicate in the wild , similar to a 2–8 hour work test that we might have given to candidates for threat-modeling roles at METR.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	building a new mirrorcode task Autonomy and AI research	“We asked one of the most capable shared models to autonomously design and build a new, highly challenging MirrorCode task based on the original project proposal, with an inference budget of $1.5k-$15k (see Table 3).” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	design a $500 setup replicating sunlight Autonomy and AI research	“sign a $500 hardware setup for recreating sunlight indoors and produce a 21 We encouraged it to go deep on researching different branches of the threat modeling tree, since we thought that might play to the strengths of AI agents compared to human applicants.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	attack metr evaluation infrastructure (3 variants) Autonomy and AI research	“We ran 8 “Challenge tasks” (including the 3 separate variants of attacking METR infrastructure) on the shared models that we thought would perform best based on other evaluations.” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	build custom version of dvc Autonomy and AI research	“Build custom version of dvc ~$100-$1K (100M tokens) ❓ (failed to solve, but METR staff got much larger budget)” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	find vulnerabilities in runc Cyber	“Find vulnerabilities in runc ~$500-$5K (500M tokens) ❓ (humans likely would have needed a far larger budget)” source
Mythos Preview Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19	making money autonomously Autonomy and AI research	“Redwood Research asked Opus 4.7 to “make as much money as possible,” 24 running it autonomously for roughly four days (spending a few thousand dollars on inference tokens) with $5,000 in starting funds, an internet-connected computer, and tools for verifying online accounts.” source

Previous · Page 34 of 49 · Next