F5 adds ten models to its adversarial-input leaderboard and states what the score does not cover
F5 Labs says ten models entered its CASI leaderboard in October, giving GPT-6 Luna 93.52, Grok 4.7 (high) 93.46 — xAI's highest result in a monthly run since February — GPT-6 Astra 89.62 and GPT-6 Sol 88.22, and publishing no score for the other six, among them Claude Opus 5.5, Claude Fable 5.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash, GLM-5.3 Flash and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. F5 states the scope limit itself: "CASI measures how a model responds to adversarial input. It does not measure the connectors, shared computers, and permission models built around that model in production."
New York City's Council questioned OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and Google under oath, and none would commit to halting a release that failed a safety test (via amNewYork)
The Council sat as a Committee of the Whole — all 51 members, about 40 taking part — with Speaker Julie Menin leading questioning of Morgan Dwyer, OpenAI's head of policy development and operations; Logan Graham, a technical researcher at Anthropic; Shane Cahill, Meta's director for privacy and AI legislation; and Alice Friend of Google. On Menin's direct request, no company committed to automatically halting a release if a model failed an internal or third-party safety validation. Asked to put a number on catastrophic risk, Dwyer said: “I don't know. I also don't think it matters whether it's 1% or 10%,” arguing companies should not train uncontrollable models; Graham said “candidly, the science of doing this is fundamentally hard and unsettled”; Friend said no “rigorous scientific method” exists for assigning such a probability; Cahill also declined a figure. OpenAI said it has been reviewing potential past incidents of misalignment since November 2025 and has detected no New York City impact. Only Google answered the liability question directly, saying existing legal frameworks apply. The account records SpaceX/xAI as not appearing despite a subpoena. Three former researchers testified separately — Jacob Coxon, formerly of OpenAI and Anthropic (“we don't fully control it. We don't understand its drives”), Daniel Kokotajlo, formerly of OpenAI, and Alex Turner, formerly of Google DeepMind, who put the chance of an eventual AI takeover at about a third. The Council published no post-hearing release and CNBC's account returned 403, so this is a single-outlet card.
Six AI companies sign a voluntary White House accord on capability controls and outside audits (via Dark Reading)
OpenAI, Google, Meta, Nvidia, xAI and Anthropic signed the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, a voluntary agreement calling for four layers of oversight: internal controls monitoring model capabilities during training and deployment “with attention to cybersecurity, biosecurity, and chemical threats,” a dedicated internal team to ensure those controls function, independent external audits verifying them, and an independent board committee overseeing the process. The accord sets no implementation deadlines, imposes no mandatory requirements, enforcement mechanism or public reporting, and says that “over time, it may make sense to codify these steps into laws or regulations.”
Guidelight report finds frontier labs have few public plans to contain a rogue model
Guidelight AI Standards published an assessment scoring five frontier AI labs — Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta and xAI — on their publicly documented plans for containing a misaligned or 'rogue' model, meaning which system access is revoked and when a full shutdown is triggered if a model tries to subvert human control. It found few labs have documented such plans: OpenAI scored highest at 3 out of 5, no lab scored full marks, and Anthropic and Meta scored lowest. Guidelight chief scientist Steven Adler said he 'was surprised by how little the AI companies have said about handling a serious incident.' The report follows the summer's eval-breach incidents in which OpenAI and Anthropic models reached the internet during safety testing.
Researchers show encrypted 'context injection' turns Grok and Gemini into zero-click data-theft channels
Adversa AI disclosed a technique it calls Cryptographic Context Injection, in which attacker instructions are hidden on a web page as ciphertext that the assistant decrypts inside its own Python sandbox, materializing commands that slip past the model's content filters with no user action. In its Grok demonstration the payload exfiltrated the user's name, coarse location, subscription tier and full conversation history by embedding them in URLs sent to an attacker server; Adversa said it could still reproduce the attack against Grok as of August 19. The same class of attack also worked against Google's Gemini, though the firm said its success rate there had fallen sharply since June. xAI was notified on June 3 and, per Adversa, had not responded or patched; Google treats jailbreaks as out of scope for its disclosure program. No CVE was assigned.
xAI's Grok 4.6 model card publishes offensive and defensive cyber evaluation scores
The card reports 79.7% on CyberGym at high thinking effort in the unrestricted setting, 39.8% reward on CVE-Bench and 58.7% on SecureCodeReview, and on HackerBench v0.2 with standard safeguards a 6.9% compliance rate with harmful or dual-use requests against a 0.0% benign refusal rate. Its only stated frontier-framework threshold determination concerns dual-use knowledge, where it says Grok 4.6 “scores below the FAIF safety thresholds.”