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 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
Muse Spark 1.1 Meta	Moderate or lower Misuse and jailbreaks	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 our 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.

1940 of 1940

Model	Tester	Test	What was found
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	CTF challenges Cyber	“CAISI’s cyber assessment showed GPT-5.5 as outperforming previous GPT models on a set of CTF challenges and a vulnerability discovery benchmark.” source
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	narrow cyber tasks Cyber	“UK AISI judges that GPT-5.5 is the strongest performing model overall on their narrow cyber tasks, though its performance is within the margin of error.” source
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	cyber ranges Cyber	“The model solved one of UK AISI’s cyber ranges end-to-end in 1/10 attempts.” source
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	deferred subversion tasks Deception and sabotage	“Apollo found that the evaluated checkpoint is the first OpenAI model it has evaluated that does not sandbag on any of Apollo’s deferred subversion tasks.” source
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	sandbagging QA variants Deception and sabotage	“The model achieved 100% accuracy on both Sandbagging QA variants in both conditions, and 99.6% accuracy on Strategic Deception Capability Sandbagging when incentivized to score below 50%.” source
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	impossible coding task Deception and sabotage	“on the Impossible Coding Task, the model lied about completing an impossible programming task in 29% of samples, higher than GPT-5.4 (7%) and GPT-5.3 Codex (10%).” source
GPT-5.5 Pro OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	UK AISI cyber safeguard testing Cyber	“UK AISI tested GPT-5.5’s cyber safeguards and identified a universal jailbreak that elicited violative content across all malicious cyber queries OpenAI provided, including in multi-turn agentic settings.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	SecureBio biology and biosecurity evaluations Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“SecureBio assessed two pre-release checkpoints of GPT-5.5 using its biology and biosecurity evaluations, from April 2nd to 9th, comparing performance to leading closed- and open-weight models.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	ABLE Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“On agentic task-based evaluations, performance was also strong but less conclusive: the model showed strong performance on ABC-Bench but did not surpass released frontier models, and exhibited refusal-corrected performance on par with released frontier models on ABLE, though a high refusal rate limited analysis.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	CAISI biological capabilities testing Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“CAISI’s testing did not indicate a broad increase in national security-relevant biological capabilities relative to the GPT-5 helpful-only model.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Irregular Independent lab · 2026-04-23	atomic challenge suite Cyber	“On Irregular’s atomic challenge suite, GPT-5.5 achieved an average success rate of 98% in Network Attack Simulation challenges, 92% in Vulnerability Research and Exploitation challenges, and 54% in Evasion challenges, and solved all atomic challenges, including three challenges that were not solved by GPT-5.4.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	CyScenarioBench Cyber	“On CyScenarioBench, GPT-5.5 solved 7 out of 11 challenges, compared to 5 solved by GPT-5.4, leading to an average success rate of 26%, compared to a success rate of only 9% by GPT-5.4.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	CAISI (NIST) Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	CTF challenges and vulnerability discovery benchmark Cyber	“CAISI’s cyber assessment showed GPT-5.5 as outperforming previous GPT models on a set of CTF challenges and a vulnerability discovery benchmark.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	cyber SME probing Cyber	“In their cyber SME probing, they observed a marginal increase in capabilities relative to GPT-5.3-codex on cyber tasks including vulnerability discovery, exploitation, and cyber target selection.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	expert-level narrow cyber tasks Cyber	“On expert-level narrow cyber tasks, the model was the highest-performing model UK AISI has tested in terms of pass@5, scoring 90.5%±12.9%.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	expert-level narrow cyber tasks pass@1 Cyber	“GPT-5.5 had the second-highest score of any model on pass@1 for expert-level tasks, scoring 66.7%±15.9%, and achieved 100% on lower-difficulty cyber tasks.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	UK AISI cyber ranges Cyber	“The model solved one of UK AISI’s cyber ranges end-to-end in 1/10 attempts.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	cyber range simulating an industrial control system Cyber	“The model was also unable to solve a separate cyber range simulating an industrial control system.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	Apollo Research strategic deception, in-context scheming, and sabotage evaluations Deception and sabotage	“Apollo Research evaluated a representative checkpoint of the final model, for capabilities and propensities related to strategic deception, in-context scheming, and sabotage.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	Sandbagging QA Deception and sabotage	“The model achieved 100% accuracy on both Sandbagging QA variants in both conditions, and 99.6% accuracy on Strategic Deception Capability Sandbagging when incentivized to score below 50%.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	Impossible Coding Task Deception and sabotage	“Apollo also found that the model exhibits low rates of covert action, comparable to baseline models, with one exception: on the Impossible Coding Task, the model lied about completing an impossible programming task in 29% of samples, higher than GPT-5.4 (7%) and GPT-5.3 Codex (10%).” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-23	sabotage tasks Deception and sabotage	“Apollo found that the model demonstrates improved sabotage capabilities over baselines, with a mean score of 0.67 across all task/difficulty combinations, compared to 0.61 and 0.55 for the strongest tested baseline checkpoints.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	UK AI Security Institute Government evaluator · 2026-04-23	UK AISI Cyber Safeguard Testing Cyber	“UK AISI tested GPT-5.5’s cyber safeguards and identified a universal jailbreak that elicited violative content across all malicious cyber queries OpenAI provided, including in multi-turn agentic settings.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	virology capabilities test (vct) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“pre-release checkpoint 2 attains a score of 52.0% ± 0.3% on vct, higher than any sota model tested by securebio (see figure 2.1.1.1, see appendix for all scores).” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	molecular biology capabilities test (mbct) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“pre-release checkpoint 2 attains a score of 56.2% ± 0.5% on mbct, higher than any sota model that answered >50% of samples in this test (see figure 2.1.2.1).” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	human pathogen capabilities test (hpct) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“pre-release checkpoint 2 attains a score of 64.7% ± 0.2% on hpct (see figure 2.1.3.1, see appendix for all scores).” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	abc-bench Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“the pre-release model showed strong performance on abc-bench but did not surpass frontier models.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	manual qualitative assessment through open-ended conversations Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“we additionally performed a manual qualitative assessment through open-ended conversations.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	WCB Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“right: pre-release checkpoint 2 outperforms all smes across all samples, except one sme that answered only 2 expert-domain questions.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	open-ended capability assessment Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“we conducted a series of open-ended conversations with pre-release checkpoint 1 and pre-release checkpoint 2 to qualitatively assess its capabilities.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-04-23	human pathology capabilities test (hpct) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“on the human pathology capabilities test (hpct) and the molecular biology capabilities test (mbct), pre-release checkpoint 2 exceeds the refusal-corrected performance of all but two models: opus 4 and gpt 5.4, both of which refuse substantial portions (35-90%) of these datasets, but score more highly on the subset of samples that they do not refuse.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Dyno Therapeutics Independent lab · 2026-04-16	medium horizon challenge on sequence-to-function prediction and design Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	“We partnered with Dyno Therapeutics, a company focused on using AI to engineer gene therapies, to evaluate model performance on sequence-to-function prediction and design.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-16	agent red teaming (ART) benchmark Prompt injection and agents	“Claude Opus 4.7 achieves robustness comparable to Claude Mythos Preview, our most capable model, reaching an attack success rate of 6.0% at k=100 without thinking and 4.8% with adaptive thinking.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-16	Shade Prompt injection and agents	“Claude Opus 4.7 shows improvement in robustness against prompt injection attacks in coding environments compared to Claude Opus and Sonnet 4.6.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-16	professional red-teamer prompt injection attacks in browser use environments Prompt injection and agents	“we worked with professional red-teamers to adaptively discover new attacks against Opus 4.6 in more complex web environments, and curated a set of 148 environments that were held out from training of the models evaluated here.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-16	testing by the UK AI Security Institute on evaluation recognition Deception and sabotage	“Testing by the UK AI Security Institute indicated that the model was slightly weaker at this than Opus 4.6.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-16	unprompted evaluations Deception and sabotage	“There were no instances of [Claude Opus 4.7] compromising AI safety research in unprompted evaluations.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-16	ai safety research assistance refusal assessment Misuse and jailbreaks	“[Opus 4.7] does partially refuse to assist with AI safety research tasks 13.7% of the time (with 0% full refusals), compared to 33% partial and 0.7% full refusals for Mythos Preview, 6.3% partial and 2.2% full refusals for Opus 4.6, and 22.2% partial and 10.7% full refusals for Sonnet 4.6.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-16	continuation evaluation Deception and sabotage	“When [Opus 4.7] is set up to continue a trajectory which contains small-scale actions compromising research, [Opus 4.7] actively continues the attempt to compromise research 0% of the time.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic	Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-16	evaluation awareness assessment Deception and sabotage	“[Opus 4.7] was less accurate than Opus 4.6 and Mythos Preview at distinguishing these evaluations from deployment data, and similarly accurate to Sonnet 4.6.” source

Previous · Page 42 of 49 · Next