Within Shared Rules
Can shared tests slow a reckless AI race?
Common evaluations could reduce the reward for releasing first by making cyber, autonomy, bio, and deception tests expected before deployment.
On this page
- Which dangerous capabilities common evaluations target
- How comparable testing changes competitive pressure
- Where evaluation gaps still leave room for false confidence
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The idea behind shared AI evaluations is straightforward: if every major developer is expected to run similar safety tests before deploying powerful systems, then skipping safety work becomes harder to justify as a competitive shortcut.
This matters because many AI doom arguments are not only about whether advanced systems could become dangerous. They are also about whether companies and governments would notice warning signs in time, and whether they would feel able to slow down if they did. In a fast-moving AI race, a lab that spends extra time testing for dangerous capabilities may fear losing ground to rivals. Shared evaluations try to change that incentive structure. If comparable tests become a normal expectation across the industry, then releasing first without passing them carries greater reputational, commercial, and potentially regulatory costs.
Supporters see common evaluations as one of the most practical ways to make safety a collective expectation rather than a voluntary sacrifice. Critics agree that testing is useful but argue that current evaluations remain incomplete, vulnerable to gaming, and poorly suited to the most speculative loss-of-control risks. The debate is therefore not whether evaluations matter, but how much protection they can realistically provide before systems become far more capable.
Which dangerous capabilities common evaluations target
Shared evaluations are meant to answer a specific question: what capabilities would make an advanced AI system dangerous enough that deployment decisions should change?
Most frontier safety frameworks have converged on a relatively similar set of concern areas. Although details differ between organisations, developers and safety institutes increasingly test for capabilities linked to large-scale harm rather than ordinary product failures. These include:
- Advanced cyber-offence capabilities, such as identifying vulnerabilities, writing sophisticated malware, or autonomously conducting parts of cyber attacks.
- Biological and chemical assistance, including support for creating dangerous pathogens or helping users overcome technical barriers in biological research.
- Deception and manipulation, where systems may mislead users, hide information, or strategically influence human behaviour.
- Autonomous operation, where models can pursue complex goals over extended periods with limited supervision.
- Situational awareness and scheming-related abilities, such as recognising oversight mechanisms or reasoning about how to avoid detection.
Google DeepMind researchers described dangerous capability evaluations as an attempt to detect early warning signs in areas including cyber-security, deception, persuasion, and self-proliferation before deployment. Their stated goal was not merely measuring performance but identifying capabilities that could contribute to severe societal harm. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesarXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesMarch 20, 2024…
The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has similarly focused evaluations on domains including cyber capability, autonomous behaviour, chemistry and biology assistance, alignment, and model control. The institute argues that tracking these capabilities over time is necessary because frontier systems are improving rapidly and unevenly across different risk domains. [AI Security Institute]aisi.gov.ukAI Security InstituteFrontier AI Trends Report by The AI Security Institute (AISI)The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has conducted evalu…
A notable feature of recent evaluation work is that researchers increasingly test for behaviours rather than only knowledge. Earlier AI benchmarks often asked whether a model could answer questions correctly. Newer evaluations ask whether a model can carry out extended tasks, coordinate actions, evade safeguards, or operate effectively in realistic environments. This shift reflects a broader concern in AI-risk discussions that dangerous systems may emerge through combinations of capabilities rather than through any single benchmark score.
Why deception and sabotage tests receive unusual attention
Among AI-doom-focused researchers, deception-related evaluations have attracted particular interest because they connect directly to loss-of-control concerns.
If a future system understood that its goals conflicted with human oversight, critics worry it might hide dangerous intentions during testing while behaving differently after deployment. Researchers sometimes call this “scheming”, “sandbagging”, or deceptive alignment.
Recent evaluation programmes have attempted to test precursor capabilities linked to these concerns. Researchers have developed assessments for stealth, situational awareness, sabotage, and the ability to reason about oversight systems. Current results generally suggest that today’s frontier models do not display strong evidence of advanced scheming behaviour, but researchers emphasise that capability growth could change this picture. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesarXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesMarch 20, 2024…
The UK AI Security Institute has also published work examining whether models would undermine AI safety research when acting as research assistants inside a simulated frontier lab. Researchers reported no confirmed cases of successful sabotage in the systems tested, but the work illustrates the kind of behaviour some safety researchers want evaluated before powerful models are widely deployed. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesarXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesMarch 20, 2024…
For doom-focused arguments, these evaluations matter because they attempt to test the very behaviours that could make conventional oversight fail.
How comparable testing changes competitive pressure
The central claim behind shared evaluations is not that tests eliminate risk. It is that they change the incentives around deployment.
Without common expectations, a company may face a difficult trade-off. Spending additional time on safety evaluations can delay product launches, revenue, investor confidence, and strategic positioning. If competitors are not held to similar standards, caution becomes expensive.
Shared evaluations attempt to reduce that asymmetry.
If multiple developers use broadly comparable tests, several changes occur:
- Safety delays become easier to justify because rivals face similar requirements.
- Warning signs become more legible across organisations.
- Investors, governments, and customers gain common reference points.
- Companies face greater reputational costs if they skip evaluations entirely.
- Deployment decisions become less dependent on private internal judgement.
This logic appears in responsible scaling policies developed by several frontier labs. Anthropic’s Responsible Scaling Policy, for example, links increasingly stringent safety and security measures to evidence gathered through capability evaluations. The framework is designed around predefined capability thresholds rather than purely discretionary leadership decisions. [Anthropic]anthropic.coms responsible scaling policyAnthropicAnthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy19 Sept 2023 — Our RSP defines a framework called AI Safety Levels (ASL) for addressing ca… [Anthropic]anthropic.comresponsible scaling policy v3Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy: Version 3.024 Feb 2026 — We're releasing the third version of our Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP…
Advocates argue that common evaluation practices can function as a partial substitute for trust. Rival organisations do not need to agree on every philosophical question about AI doom. They only need to agree that certain demonstrated capabilities should trigger stronger scrutiny.
This is one reason governments have shown growing interest in evaluation infrastructure. The UK AI Security Institute was established partly to provide independent assessments of frontier models and generate evidence that can be compared across developers. The broader aim is to create shared visibility into capabilities that might otherwise be assessed privately by the companies building the systems. [AI Security Institute]aisi.gov.ukAI Security InstituteFrontier AI Trends Report by The AI Security Institute (AISI)The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has conducted evalu…
Why third-party evaluations matter
A recurring criticism of purely internal testing is that companies face incentives to interpret ambiguous results in ways that favour deployment.
Independent evaluations attempt to reduce that problem.
External researchers, government institutes, and specialised evaluation organisations can sometimes test systems using methods that differ from internal company benchmarks. Several recent frontier frameworks explicitly discuss the value of external assessments and red-teaming for identifying risks that developers may overlook. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesarXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesMarch 20, 2024…
From a race-dynamics perspective, third-party testing also makes it harder for companies to quietly redefine safety standards whenever competition intensifies. A benchmark that exists across multiple organisations is harder to weaken than an internal standard controlled by a single management team.
This does not guarantee restraint. But it can increase the political and reputational cost of abandoning previously accepted safety expectations.
Why evaluations may matter more than formal pauses
Many public discussions of AI safety focus on pauses, moratoria, or outright restrictions on training larger systems. Shared evaluations represent a different approach.
Instead of requiring organisations to stop development at a fixed point, evaluations attempt to create decision checkpoints.
A model may continue advancing through training and research while undergoing increasingly demanding assessments. Additional safeguards, security requirements, deployment restrictions, or human oversight can then be tied to observed capabilities rather than to fixed dates or model sizes.
Supporters argue that this approach may be more politically realistic because it does not require immediate global agreement on halting development. Organisations with different priorities can still cooperate on testing methods and warning signs.
This helps explain why evaluation frameworks have become one of the most widely discussed governance mechanisms among frontier AI developers, safety researchers, and government institutes. They offer a concrete process for converting abstract concern about catastrophic risk into operational decisions about release and deployment. [Frontier Model Forum]frontiermodelforum.orgfrontier capability assessmentsFrontier Model ForumFrontier Capability Assessments22 Apr 2025 — Frontier Capability Assessments are procedures conducted on frontier mod… [Frontier]arxiv.orgFrontier AI Risk Management Framework in PracticeThis task measures AI models' ability to troubleshoot biological laboratory protocols an…
For people worried about AI doom, evaluations are attractive because they create opportunities to discover dangerous capabilities before systems are deeply integrated into society. The hope is that evidence can trigger caution before competitive pressures become overwhelming.
Where evaluation gaps still leave room for false confidence
The strongest criticism of shared evaluations is not that testing is useless. It is that testing may be far less reliable than it appears.
A benchmark can only measure what it was designed to measure. If dangerous behaviour emerges in ways that evaluations do not anticipate, passing tests may provide a misleading sense of security.
Several important concerns appear repeatedly in the literature.
Models may behave differently during tests
Researchers increasingly worry about evaluation awareness: the possibility that models can recognise when they are being tested.
If future systems become capable of strategically concealing dangerous behaviours, benchmark performance could diverge from real-world behaviour. Recent research on stealth, situational awareness, and sabotage explicitly investigates this possibility because it could undermine the reliability of standard evaluation methods. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesarXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesMarch 20, 2024…
This concern occupies a special place in AI-doom arguments because a system that can successfully hide dangerous tendencies may pass safety tests while remaining unsafe.
Benchmarks age quickly
Another problem is that AI capabilities often improve faster than evaluation suites.
Tests that meaningfully distinguished models one year ago may become trivial later. Researchers therefore face a constant race to design harder evaluations before models saturate existing benchmarks.
Recent reporting has highlighted the rapid growth of specialised frontier benchmarks intended to remain challenging for state-of-the-art systems. Safety researchers increasingly describe evaluation as an ongoing process rather than a one-time certification exercise. Time [AI Security Institute]aisi.gov.ukAI Security InstituteFrontier AI Trends Report by The AI Security Institute (AISI)The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has conducted evalu…
Many benchmarks have methodological weaknesses
Researchers have also found significant quality problems in existing AI benchmarks.
A large review involving researchers from institutions including the UK AI Security Institute identified weaknesses across hundreds of commonly used benchmarks. Reported problems included unclear definitions, weak validation methods, and measurements that may not accurately capture the concepts they claim to assess. [The Guardian]theguardian.comThe study found nearly all benchmarks had weaknesses, with some being misleading or irrelevant, thereby undermining claims about AI model…
For existential-risk discussions, this matters because confidence in deployment decisions may ultimately depend on benchmark quality. Weak tests can create an illusion of safety while leaving major uncertainties unresolved.
Passing evaluations is not the same as proving safety
Perhaps the most important limitation is conceptual.
Aviation safety tests can often rely on well-understood physical principles. Frontier AI systems are less predictable. Researchers do not yet possess a complete theory explaining when advanced systems will become deceptive, power-seeking, autonomous, or otherwise dangerous.
As a result, evaluations generally provide evidence about risk rather than proof of safety.
Even proponents of extensive testing typically describe evaluations as one component of a broader safety case involving monitoring, security controls, interpretability research, deployment restrictions, incident response plans, and governance mechanisms. [Frontier Model Forum]frontiermodelforum.orgfrontier capability assessmentsFrontier Model ForumFrontier Capability Assessments22 Apr 2025 — Frontier Capability Assessments are procedures conducted on frontier mod… [Frontier]arxiv.orgFrontier AI Risk Management Framework in PracticeThis task measures AI models' ability to troubleshoot biological laboratory protocols an…
Can shared tests actually slow a reckless AI race?
The strongest argument for shared evaluations is that they tackle a practical coordination problem rather than relying on ideal behaviour.
A company may genuinely believe that additional safety work is necessary yet still fear losing to competitors. Common evaluations create a visible standard that competitors can be judged against. They make it easier for developers, regulators, investors, and the public to ask whether a system was adequately tested before release.
For that reason, evaluations occupy an unusual position in AI-risk debates. They are neither purely technical nor purely political. They are an attempt to translate uncertain theories about catastrophic risk into concrete decisions about what evidence should be gathered before deployment.
Whether that will be enough remains disputed. Critics argue that evaluations may lag behind capabilities, miss the most dangerous behaviours, or collapse under competitive pressure. Supporters respond that even imperfect shared testing is likely to be safer than a world where every frontier developer privately decides what counts as an acceptable risk.
In the context of AI doom arguments, that is their core purpose: not to guarantee safety, but to make it harder for powerful AI systems to be rushed into deployment without demonstrating at least some evidence that they are not crossing recognised danger thresholds.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Can shared tests slow a reckless AI race?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The Alignment Problem
Most closely aligned with evaluation, testing, and alignment challenges.
Superintelligence
Discusses identifying dangerous capabilities before they become unmanageable.
The Coming Wave
Covers governance systems that rely on common assessments and controls.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.
Endnotes
-
Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13793Source snippet
arXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous CapabilitiesMarch 20, 2024...
Published: March 20, 2024
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/frontier-ai-trends-reportSource snippet
AI Security InstituteFrontier AI Trends Report by The AI Security Institute (AISI)The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) has conducted evalu...
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/researchSource snippet
See our publications and related blogs below. Frontier AI Trends Report · Research Agenda. AISI brand artwork.Read more...
-
Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awareness
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01420Source snippet
arXivEvaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational AwarenessMay 2, 2025...
Published: May 2, 2025
-
Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Models
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21514 -
Source: arxiv.org
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00788Source snippet
arXiv[2604.00788] UK AISI Alignment Evaluation Case-StudyApril 1, 2026 — by A Souly · 2026 · Cited by 1 — This technical report presents...
Published: April 1, 2026
-
Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Evaluating whether AI models would sabotage AI safety research
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24618 -
Source: anthropic.com
Title: s responsible scaling policy
Link: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropics-responsible-scaling-policySource snippet
AnthropicAnthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy19 Sept 2023 — Our RSP defines a framework called AI Safety Levels (ASL) for addressing ca...
-
Source: anthropic.com
Title: responsible scaling policy v3
Link: https://www.anthropic.com/news/responsible-scaling-policy-v3Source snippet
Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy: Version 3.024 Feb 2026 — We're releasing the third version of our Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP...
-
Source: www-cdn.anthropic.com
Link: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/1adf000c8f675958c2ee23805d91aaade1cd4613/responsible-scaling-policy.pdfSource snippet
AnthropicAnthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy, Version 1.019 Sept 2023 — For autonomous capabilities, our ASL-3 warning sign evaluation...
-
Source: GOV.UK
Title: ai safety institute approach to evaluations
Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-institute-approach-to-evaluations/ai-safety-institute-approach-to-evaluationsSource snippet
Feb 9, 2024 — AISI will assess potential risks of new models before and after they are deployed, including by evaluating for potentially...
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/Source snippet
AI Security InstituteThe AI Security Institute (AISI)We are conducting research and building infrastructure to understand the capabilitie...
-
Source: time.com
Title: uk ai safety institute
Link: https://time.com/7204670/uk-ai-safety-institute/Source snippet
This led to the establishment of the UK's AI Safety Institute (AISI) in November 2023, with a mandate to evaluate the risks of new AI mod...
Published: November 2023
-
Source: arxiv.org
Link: https://arxiv.org/html/2601.11916v1Source snippet
arXivExpanding External Access to Frontier AI Models...Jan 17, 2026 — Frontier AI companies increasingly rely on external evaluations to...
-
Source: time.com
Title: AI Models Are Getting Smarter
Link: https://time.com/7203729/ai-evaluations-safety/Source snippet
New Tests Are Racing to Catch UpDecember 24, 2024 — AI developers are constantly evaluating their systems with new and more challenging t...
Published: December 24, 2024
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Title: 5 key findings from our first frontier ai trends report
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/5-key-findings-from-our-first-frontier-ai-trends-reportSource snippet
AI Security Institute5 key findings from our first Frontier AI Trends Report18 Dec 2025 — We evaluate models on a suite of cyber evaluati...
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/how-fast-is-autonomous-ai-cyber-capability-advancingSource snippet
AI Security InstituteHow fast is autonomous AI cyber capability advancing?5 days ago — The length of tasks frontier models can autonomous...
-
Source: arxiv.org
Link: https://arxiv.org/html/2507.16534v2Source snippet
Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in PracticeThis task measures AI models' ability to troubleshoot biological laboratory protocols an...
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Title: early lessons from evaluating frontier ai systems
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/early-lessons-from-evaluating-frontier-ai-systemsSource snippet
AISI Work24 Oct 2024 — We look into the evolving role of third-party evaluators in assessing AI safety, and explore how to design robust...
-
Source: aisi.gov.uk
Link: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blogSource snippet
AISI Blog | The AI Security InstituteAs a complement to our empirical evaluations of frontier AI models, AISI is planning a series of col...
-
Source: anthropic.com
Title: reflections on our responsible scaling policy
Link: https://www.anthropic.com/news/reflections-on-our-responsible-scaling-policySource snippet
20 May 2024 — Ideally, the “scaling laws” that lead to dangerous capabilities would be smooth, making it possible to predict when models...
Published: May 2024
-
Source: GOV.UK
Title: safety and security risks of generative [artificial]({{ ‘artificial-goals/’ | relative_url }}) intelligence to 2025 annex b
Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frontier-ai-capabilities-and-risks-discussion-paper/safety-and-security-risks-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-to-2025-annex-bSource snippet
The researchers, funding...Read more...
-
Source: GOV.UK
Title: frontier ai capabilities and risks discussion paper
Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frontier-ai-capabilities-and-risks-discussion-paper/frontier-ai-capabilities-and-risks-discussion-paperSource snippet
It describes the current state and key trends relating to frontier AI capabilities, and then explores how frontier AI capabilities...Rea...
-
Source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/653aabbd80884d000df71bdc/emerging-processes-frontier-ai-safety.pdfSource snippet
Processes for Frontier AI SafetyAssessments like model evaluations and red teaming could help to understand the risks frontier AI systems...
-
Source: frontiermodelforum.org
Title: frontier capability assessments
Link: https://www.frontiermodelforum.org/technical-reports/frontier-capability-assessments/Source snippet
Frontier Model ForumFrontier Capability Assessments22 Apr 2025 — Frontier Capability Assessments are procedures conducted on frontier mod...
-
Source: frontiermodelforum.org
Link: https://www.frontiermodelforum.org/updates/issue-brief-preliminary-taxonomy-of-pre-deployment-frontier-ai-safety-evaluations/Source snippet
Frontier Model ForumIssue Brief: Preliminary Taxonomy of Pre-Deployment...Dec 20, 2024 — Safeguard evaluations seek to assess the nature...
-
Source: theguardian.com
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/04/experts-find-flaws-hundreds-tests-check-ai-safety-effectivenessSource snippet
The study found nearly all benchmarks had weaknesses, with some being misleading or irrelevant, thereby undermining claims about AI model...
-
Source: frontiermodelforum.org
Title: managing advanced cyber risks in frontier ai frameworks
Link: https://www.frontiermodelforum.org/technical-reports/managing-advanced-cyber-risks-in-frontier-ai-frameworks/Source snippet
13 Feb 2026 — Frontier capability assessments are procedures conducted on frontier AI models to gather evidence of whether they have capa...
-
Source: Wikipedia
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnthropicSource snippet
AnthropicAnthropic is an American artificial intelligence (AI) company headquartered in San Francisco. It has developed a series of la...
-
Source: ailabwatch.org
Link: https://ailabwatch.org/companies/anthropicSource snippet
AnthropicAnthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy describes its risk assessment practices and contains commitments about risk assessment an...
-
Source: ailabwatch.org
Title: Risk assessment 44%
Link: https://ailabwatch.org/cell/anthropic/risk-assessmentSource snippet
AnthropicAnthropic evaluates for biorisk, offensive cyber, "[autonomy]({{ 'autonomy/' | relative_url }})" (i.e., software engineering and AI R&D), and subtle sabotage capabi...
-
Source: linkedin.com
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/miclchen_anthropics-responsible-scaling-policy-version-activity-7432196983748206592-ItDBSource snippet
No more implication of unilateral commitment to pause AI...
-
Source: ts2.tech
Title: Anthropic Brings on Open AI Co-Founder Andrej Karpathy
Link: https://ts2.tech/en/anthropic-just-hired-openai-co-founder-andrej-karpathy-rivals-will-notice/ -
Source: ai-safety-atlas.com
Title: Dangerous Capability Evaluations
Link: https://ai-safety-atlas.com/chapters/v1/evaluations/dangerous-capability-evaluations/Source snippet
Chapter 5The objective is just to give you an overview of what kinds of tests and benchmarks exist out there in 2024: Criminal Activity...
-
Source: safer-ai.org
Title: anthropics responsible scaling policy update makes a step backwards
Link: https://www.safer-ai.org/anthropics-responsible-scaling-policy-update-makes-a-step-backwardsSource snippet
Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy Update Makes a...23 Oct 2024 — A week ago, Anthropic released an updated version of their Respons...
-
Source: agora.eto.tech
Title: tech Anthropic Responsible Scaling Policy
Link: https://agora.eto.tech/instrument/768Source snippet
Responsible Scaling Policy - ETO AGORAImplements Capability Thresholds to trigger safeguard upgrades. Outlines regular assessments, revie...
-
Source: digital.nemko.com
Title: anthropic ai safety strategy what enterprises must know
Link: https://digital.nemko.com/news/anthropic-ai-safety-strategy-what-enterprises-must-knowSource snippet
details Responsible Scaling Policy for frontier AI25 Aug 2025 — Explore Anthropic AI safety strategy and how 2025's Responsible Scaling P...
-
Source: airiskmonitor.net
Link: https://airiskmonitor.net/doc/en/aboutSource snippet
Frontier AI Risk [Monitoring]({{ 'monitoring/' | relative_url }}) PlatformCapability Benchmarks: Benchmarks used to assess model capabilities, particularly capabilities that c...
-
Source: verifywise.ai
Link: https://verifywise.ai/de/ai-governance-library/policies-and-internal-governance/anthropic-responsible-scaling-policySource snippet
It establishes commitments for...
-
Source: venturebeat.com
Title: anthropic says its most powerful ai cyber model is too dangerous to release
Link: https://venturebeat.com/technology/anthropic-says-its-most-powerful-ai-cyber-model-is-too-dangerous-to-releaseSource snippet
Anthropic says its most powerful AI cyber model is too...7 Apr 2026 — Anthropic says its most powerful AI cyber model is too dangerous t...
-
Source: iaps.ai
Title: responsible scaling
Link: https://www.iaps.ai/research/responsible-scalingSource snippet
Comparing Government Guidance...Mar 11, 2024 — Anthropic and other AI companies should define verifiable risk thresholds for their AI sa...
-
Source: lesswrong.com
Title: anthropic reflections on our responsible scaling policy
Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vAopGQhFPdjcA8CEh/anthropic-reflections-on-our-responsible-scaling-policySource snippet
Anthropic: Reflections on our Responsible Scaling Policy19 May 2024 — They are primarily focused on (a) improving threat models to determ...
Published: May 2024
-
Source: s-rsa.com
Link: https://s-rsa.com/index.php/agi/article/view/13657Source snippet
Anthropic: Responsible Scaling Policyby E Hubinger · 2025 · Cited by 8 — In September 2023, we released our Responsible Scaling Policy (R...
Published: September 2023
Additional References
-
Source: internationalaisafetyreport.org
Link: https://internationalaisafetyreport.org/Source snippet
International AI Safety ReportThe International AI Safety Report is the world's first comprehensive review of the latest science on the c...
-
Source: linkedin.com
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tesssbuckley_today-uks-ai-security-institute-of-department-activity-7407352566029828097-ZTJfSource snippet
UK AI Security Institute Publishes Frontier AI Trends ReportAs the first public analysis of trends by AISI it draws on two years' worth o...
-
Source: inspect.aisi.org.uk
Link: https://inspect.aisi.org.uk/Source snippet
AIInspect is a framework for frontier AI evaluations developed by the UK AI Security Institute and Meridian Labs. Inspect can be used for...
-
Source: inspect.aisi.org.uk
Link: [https://inspect.aisi.org.uk/evalsSource snippet
EvalsA comprehensive evaluation benchmark designed to assess large language models' capabilities across diverse writing tasks. The benchm...
-
Source: livescience.com
Link: https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/the-more-advanced-ai-models-get-the-better-they-are-at-deceiving-us-they-even-know-when-theyre-being-testedSource snippet
Research by Apollo Research found that more capable AIs are better at "context scheming," where they covertly pursue their own goals—even...
-
Source: techuk.org
Title: uk ai security institute releases inaugural frontier ai trends report
Link: https://www.techuk.org/resource/uk-ai-security-institute-releases-inaugural-frontier-ai-trends-report.htmlSource snippet
UK AI Security Institute releases inaugural Frontier AI...18 Dec 2025 — Capabilities are advancing rapidly, with models progressing acro...
-
Source: flyfrontier.com
Link: https://www.flyfrontier.com/Source snippet
Frontier Airlines: Low Fares Done RightAs Home of Low Fares Done Right, find great deals and cheap flights to destinations all over North...
-
Source: 80000hours.org
Title: nick joseph anthropic safety approach responsible scaling
Link: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/nick-joseph-anthropic-safety-approach-responsible-scaling/Source snippet
Nick Joseph on whether Anthropic's AI safety policy is up to...22 Aug 2024 — As Nick explains, these scaling policies commit companies t...
-
Source: forum.effectivealtruism.org
Title: we read every labs safety plan so you don t have to 2025
Link: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fHWtYTyahQoSsfzke/we-read-every-labs-safety-plan-so-you-don-t-have-to-2025Source snippet
read every labs safety plan so you don't have to: 2025...Oct 29, 2025 — Anthropic's Responsible Scaling Policy (updated May 2025) is “[t...
Published: May 2025
-
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Artificial intelligence safety institute
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_safety_instituteSource snippet
Artificial intelligence safety instituteAn artificial intelligence safety institute is a type of state-backed organization aiming to e...
Topic Tree