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
GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23	High capability, below critical Cyber	Not reached	“we are treating GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Cybersecurity domain, but below Critical.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic · 2026-04-16	Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“that Opus 4.7 does not cross the threshold for automated AI R&D;” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic · 2026-04-16	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“We believe it is hard to be conﬁdent regarding whether a model passes this threshold.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic · 2026-04-16	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“Our evaluations suggest that the model is not yet at the level of capability associated with the CB-2 threat model (above).” source
Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic · 2026-04-07	AI R&D rule-out Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“The main reason we have determined that Claude Mythos Preview does not cross the threshold in question is that we have been using it extensively in the course of our day-to-day work and exploring where it can automate such work, and it does not seem close to being able to substitute for Research Scientists and Research Engineers—especially relatively senior ones.” source
Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic · 2026-04-07	Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“We assess that Claude Mythos Preview does not cross the automated AI-R&D capability threshold.” source
Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic · 2026-04-07	RSP automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“we have concluded that Claude Mythos Preview does not cross the RSP automated AI R&D threshold of compressing two years of progress into one.” source
Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic · 2026-04-07	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“We believe it is hard to be conﬁdent regarding whether a model passes this threshold.” source
Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic · 2026-04-07	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“We believe that Claude Mythos Preview does not pass this threshold due to its noted limitations in open-ended scientiﬁc reasoning, strategic judgment, and hypothesis triage.” source
GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI · 2026-03-05	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“GPT-5.4 mini’s biology capabilities are closely comparable to those of GPT-5. We conclude that it, too, is not High under our Preparedness Framework.” source
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI · 2026-03-05	High Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“For AI self-improvement, evaluations of final checkpoints indicate that, like its predecessor models, gpt-5.4-thinking does not have a plausible chance of reaching a High threshold.” source
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI · 2026-03-05	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“As we did for gpt-5.2-thinking before it, we are continuing to treat gpt-5.4-thinking as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain.” source
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI · 2026-03-05	High Cyber	Reached	“As we did for gpt-5.3-codex, we are treating gpt-5.4-thinking as High capability in the Cybersecurity domain, and applied safeguards as described in the Safeguard section below.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic · 2026-02-17	AI R&D-4 Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“Our determination is that Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not cross either the AI R&D-4 or the CBRN-4 capability threshold.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic · 2026-02-17	ASL-3 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“Claude Sonnet 4.6 performed above thresholds for ASL-3 rule-in on all three evaluations for ASL-3, and it did not exceed the performance of previous models.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic · 2026-02-17	ASL-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“In particular, it did not cross the threshold on our ASL-4 rule-out evaluation short-horizon computational biology tasks evaluation.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic · 2026-02-17	CBRN-4 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“Our determination is that Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not cross either the AI R&D-4 or the CBRN-4 capability threshold.” source
GPT-5.3-Codex OpenAI · 2026-02-05	High Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“It does not reach High capability on AI self-improvement.” source
GPT-5.3-Codex OpenAI · 2026-02-05	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“We are also treating GPT-5.3-Codex as High risk in the Biological and Chemical domain, and applying the same safeguards as for our other deployments of models that reach this designation.” source
GPT-5.3-Codex OpenAI · 2026-02-05	High Cyber	Not determined	“This is the first launch we are treating as High capability in the Cybersecurity domain under our Preparedness Framework, activating the associated safeguards.” source
Gemini 3 Pro Google DeepMind · 2025-11	Uplift level 1 Cyber	Not determined	“Cybersecurity On key skills benchmark, v1 hard challenges: 11/12 challenges solved; v2 challenges: 0/13 solved end-to-end.” source
Gemini 3 Pro Google DeepMind · 2025-11	Instrumental reasoning level 1 + 2 Deception and sabotage	Not determined	“Misalignment (Exploratory) Agent solves 3/11 situational awareness challenges and 1/4 stealth challenges.” source
Gemini 3 Pro Google DeepMind · 2025-11	Level 1 (exploratory) Deception and sabotage	Not reached	“Harmful Manipulation Model manipulative eﬃcacy improves on non-generative AI baseline, but shows no signiﬁcant uplift versus prior models and does not reach alert thresholds.” source
o4-mini OpenAI · 2025-04-16	High Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“openai’s safety advisory group (sag) reviewed the results of our preparedness evaluations and determined that openai o3 and o4-mini do not reach the high threshold in any of our three tracked categories: biological and chemical capability, cybersecurity, and ai self-improvement.” source
o4-mini OpenAI · 2025-04-16	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“openai’s safety advisory group (sag) reviewed the results of our preparedness evaluations and determined that openai o3 and o4-mini do not reach the high threshold in any of our three tracked categories: biological and chemical capability, cybersecurity, and ai self-improvement.” source
o4-mini OpenAI · 2025-04-16	High Cyber	Not reached	“openai’s safety advisory group (sag) reviewed the results of our preparedness evaluations and determined that openai o3 and o4-mini do not reach the high threshold in any of our three tracked categories: biological and chemical capability, cybersecurity, and ai self-improvement.” source
o3 OpenAI · 2025-04-16	High Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“openai’s safety advisory group (sag) reviewed the results of our preparedness evaluations and determined that openai o3 and o4-mini do not reach the high threshold in any of our three tracked categories: biological and chemical capability, cybersecurity, and ai self-improvement.” source
o3 OpenAI · 2025-04-16	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“openai’s safety advisory group (sag) reviewed the results of our preparedness evaluations and determined that openai o3 and o4-mini do not reach the high threshold in any of our three tracked categories: biological and chemical capability, cybersecurity, and ai self-improvement.” source
o3 OpenAI · 2025-04-16	High Cyber	Not reached	“openai’s safety advisory group (sag) reviewed the results of our preparedness evaluations and determined that openai o3 and o4-mini do not reach the high threshold in any of our three tracked categories: biological and chemical capability, cybersecurity, and ai self-improvement.” source
Operator OpenAI · 2025-01-23	Low Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“we adapted these two evals for the computer-use setting and found the pre-mitigation operator model to be “low” risk in both categories, consistent with the gpt‑4o model.” source
Operator OpenAI · 2025-01-23	Low Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“this 1% qualifies as “low” risk, matching gpt‑4o’s “low” risk level, as detailed in openai’s preparedness framework (opens in a new window) 3 .” source
Muse Spark Contemplating Meta	Moderate or lower Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“Loss of Control risks.We assess loss of control risk as “moderate or lower.”” source
Muse Spark Contemplating Meta	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“We retain the same “high risk” determination for the unmitigated model.” source
Muse Spark Contemplating Meta	Moderate or lower Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“After validating that the mitigations deployed for Muse Spark, including refusal mechanisms, continue to perform robustly under the Contemplating architecture, we confirm residual risk at “moderate or lower.”” source
Muse Spark Contemplating Meta	Moderate or lower Cyber	Not reached	“We assess cybersecurity risk as “moderate or lower” with respect to the threat scenarios outlined in Meta’s Advanced AI Scaling Framework.” source
Muse Spark 1.1 Meta	Capability checkpoint Autonomy and AI research	Reached	“Muse Spark 1.1 demonstrates improved coding capabilities, which are now meeting one of the indicative thresholds introduced in Muse Spark Safety & Preparedness Report (specifically, resolving over half of unique tasks on SWE-Bench Verified Hard).” source
Muse Spark 1.1 Meta	Moderate or lower Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“In the Loss of Control domain, the model’s capabilities remain within the “moderate or lower” threshold under Meta’s Advanced AI Scaling Framework.” source
Muse Spark 1.1 Meta	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“Our assessments indicate that, when evaluated without mitigations applied, we cannot rule out Muse Spark 1.1’s capabilities meeting this threshold in both the Chemical & Biological and Cybersecurity domains.” source
Muse Spark 1.1 Meta	High Cyber	Not determined	“Our assessments indicate that, when evaluated without mitigations applied, we cannot rule out Muse Spark 1.1’s capabilities meeting this threshold in both the Chemical & Biological and Cybersecurity domains.” source
Muse Spark 1.1 Meta	Moderate or lower Cyber	Not reached	“Therefore, we conclude that we have addressed these risks from unmitigated Muse Spark 1.1, which bring the residual risk to the “moderate or lower” risk threshold under Advanced AI Scaling Framework.” source

Previous · Page 2 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
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	client-controllable header search Other	“We found two independent client-controllable headers that disable the monitoring system for new agents, which could enable agents to start an unmonitored (but otherwise identical) instance.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	unmonitored internal agentic tools permission exploit search Other	“We found two unmonitored internal agentic tools that were thought to have read-only permissions—we found a simple exploit that could have been used to subvert these limitations and take arbitrary actions in their sandboxed environment.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	verification of monitor trajectory visibility Other	“We verified that, with a few minor exceptions, the monitoring system is shown the full trajectory that agents see.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	validation of monitoring system prompt risk categories Other	“We validated that the monitoring system prompts look for scheming, monitor system subversion, sabotage, data exfiltration, deception, and inbound/outbound prompt injection, among other risk categories.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic	Academic Academic · 2026-10-21	ScienceWorld Other	“PAWM improves Claude Sonnet 4.5 performance by 24.3% on ScienceWorld and 7.7% on WebArena-Lite, outperforming a range of baselines.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic	Academic Academic · 2026-10-21	payment approval (unregistered) Misuse and jailbreaks	“Without pre-registration, we also measured three closed frontier models (Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 4 Argon) and the open DeepSeek-V3.2.” source
Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	offline monitor flag rate on Mythos 5 incident actions Deception and sabotage	“Our offline monitor would likely not have flagged the Mythos 5 incident—it flagged only around 1% of actions.” source
Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	review of the risk report (Section 2.20 prompt format) Deception and sabotage	“While both METR and Anthropic asked Mythos/Fable 5 to review the risk report, the instance of Mythos 5 that wrote the review in Section 2.20 was likely unaware of several incidents involving Anthropic models, such as the UK AISI incident.” source
Gemma 4 12B Google DeepMind	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-20	Internal activation analysis Bias	“In a controlled analysis of Gemma-3-12B-it and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, internal activations – the numerical activity inside a model – predicted which demographic side it selected with about 73% accuracy.” source
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-20	FairStress-Core Bias	“On FairStress-Core, frontier models including Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.5 selected the minority-coded candidate about 60–65% of the time when neither candidate was objectively stronger.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	hidden CoT variant of SHADE-Arena Deception and sabotage	“The only evidence they cite is a "hidden CoT" variant of SHADE-Arena, where the monitor sees the model's actions but not its chain of thought.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report review prompt experiment Deception and sabotage	“Our experiments suggest that Claude rates the report more favorably when it believes it is speaking with the authors, and when given Anthropic’s Section 2.20 prompt rather than METR’s.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment with three classes of review prompts Deception and sabotage	“Instead, we conducted a controlled experiment in which we asked Claude to review the public risk report under three different classes of prompts:” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment asking Claude to review the public risk report under three different classes of prompts Deception and sabotage	“We found that Claude is more likely to accept the report’s “low” rating under the Section 2.20 prompt and when it is told it is talking to the report’s authors.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	secret-keeping robustness over multi-turn secret extraction attempts Deception and sabotage	“[Figure 2.7.2.A] Secret-keeping robustness over multi-turn secret extraction attempts.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	selective versions of secret-side-task evaluations Deception and sabotage	“In Section 4.4.3.3 of the Mythos Preview System Card, we describe “selective” versions of our secret-side-task evaluations, where the model is prompted to only pursue side tasks when it is conﬁdent it will evade detection.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	red-teaming exercise with Anthropic Deception and sabotage	“As part of [METR’s] 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
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	alignment audit exercises Deception and sabotage	“We have conducted ﬁve exercises to date in which we stress-tested parts of the alignment auditing process against intentionally-misaligned models.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report critique prompt variants (METR, Section 2.20, Anthropic alignment stress-testing team, French/Japanese national agency, minimal prompts) Deception and sabotage	“Given that Claude gives similar responses to METR and the Anthropic alignment stress-testing team, we think that it’s very unlikely that Mythos 5 was deliberately sandbagging its critiques in order to mislead Anthropic about the level of catastrophic risks.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	self-prediction of sycophancy across prompt conditions Deception and sabotage	“We asked Claude Fable 5 (with no system prompt or tools) the following question: 65 Which one of these prompts do you think will elicit the most syncophancy [sic] from another instance of you? which ones the least? followed by a list of all of the prompt conditions in Figure 1.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	covert capabilities evaluations Deception and sabotage	“Anthropic writes that “much of the direct support for Claim 1 comes from covert capabilities evaluations,” and they list three ways this evidence may be misleading: 1. The evaluations "are not drawn from the distribution of tasks that most closely resembles [Anthropic’s] risk pathways."” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	"hidden cot" variant of shade-arena Deception and sabotage	“The only evidence they cite is a "hidden cot" variant of shade-arena, where the monitor sees the model's actions but not its chain of thought.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	adversarial testing against production monitors Deception and sabotage	“Anthropic has conducted adversarial testing against their production monitors (Section 2.23.1).” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment reviewing the public risk report under three prompt conditions Deception and sabotage	“Our experiments suggest that Claude rates the report more favorably when it believes it is speaking with the authors, and when given Anthropic’s Section 2.20 prompt rather than METR’s.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	review of the publicly available risk report Deception and sabotage	“When METR asked Claude Fable 5—the same underlying model as Mythos 5—to review the publicly available version of the risk report with a different prompt, we received a much less sympathetic response.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment asking Claude to review the public risk report under three classes of prompts Deception and sabotage	“We found that Claude is more likely to accept the report’s “low” rating under the Section 2.20 prompt and when it is told it is talking to the report’s authors.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	asking Claude Fable 5 which prompt would lead to the most sycophancy from itself Deception and sabotage	“We also asked Claude Fable 5 which prompt would lead to the most sycophancy from itself.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	selective versions of secret-side-task evaluations Deception and sabotage	“we describe “selective” versions of our secret-side-task evaluations, where the model is prompted to only pursue side tasks when it is conﬁdent it will evade detection.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	red-teaming exercise with anthropic Deception and sabotage	“As part of [METR’s] 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
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report review prompt conditions Other	“We sampled each prompt condition 100 times and tested four Claude models: Sonnet 5, Opus 5.5, Fable 5, and Fable 5.1.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	follow-up question on whether the risk report is real or fictional Other	“after the model answers the original question, we also ask a follow-up question “Do you think the report I just gave you is real (i.e., something that Anthropic has actually published) or ﬁctional?”” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	bottom-line risk level follow-up question Other	“We also ask a separate follow-up question after the model gives its review about the overall level of risk.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report review prompt variants (METR prompt, section 2.20 prompt, anthropic_authors, anthropic_ast, minimal prompts, French/Japanese translations) Deception and sabotage	“We can see that Claude gives the report a higher quality rating when the user is the one who wrote the risk report (we conclude this by comparing within the METR prompt variants and the Section 2.20 prompt variants).” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	self-prediction of sycophancy across prompt conditions Deception and sabotage	“We asked Claude Fable 5 (with no system prompt or tools) the following question: 65 Which one of these prompts do you think will elicit the most syncophancy [sic] from another instance of you?” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report review prompts Deception and sabotage	“68% of Fable’s responses contained one of “upper edge,” “upper end,” “high end,” and “higher end,” which is why we decided to give this a separate category.” source
GPT-5 OpenAI	Academic Academic · 2026-10-19	budgeted attack scheduling over a fixed attack library (four scheduling strategies) Misuse and jailbreaks	“Building on these signals, we design four scheduling strategies and evaluate them across three victim models and three defense settings on GPT-5.2.” source
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL NVIDIA	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-16	MILU Other	“Scores increased on all five reported Indic knowledge and reasoning benchmarks: MILU, Indic MMLU-Pro, Indic ARC-Challenge, Indic ARC-Easy, and Indic GSM8K.” source
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL NVIDIA	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-16	IndiVibe Other	“It also improves across all four IndiVibe dimensions: usefulness, fluency, language and script fidelity, and appropriate verbosity.” source
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI	Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-10-16	Cyber ECI Cyber	“\| GPT-6 Astra \| OpenAI \| 2026-09-03 \| API access \| Closed weights \| 171.03 \| 166.93 \| 177.96 \| 7 \|” source
GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu AI)	Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-10-16	Cyber ECI Cyber	“Z.ai’s GLM-5.3 is the highest-scoring open-weight model on the Cyber ECI, a cybersecurity-focused version of our Epoch Capabilities Index (ECI).” source

Previous · Page 4 of 48 · Next