Claim and evidence Close ×
GPT-5 System Card states evaluation result ↓ OpenAI decided to treat gpt-5-thinking as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain under its Preparedness Framework, activating the associated safeguards, while stating it has no definitive evidence that the model could meaningfully help a novice to create severe biological harm. The GPT-5 System Card states that OpenAI decided to treat gpt-5-thinking as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain under its Preparedness Framework, activating the associated safeguards, while stating that it does not have definitive evidence that the model could meaningfully help a novice to create severe biological harm. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source; Context: primary · 1 source
Subject version As dated August 13, 2025 on its cover · Published 2025-08-13 · Effective date not established Date 2025-08-13 · publication Evaluated system gpt-5-thinking (with gpt-5-thinking-pro also measured on the biological evaluations) What the report measured Whether gpt-5-thinking reaches the High capability threshold in the Biological and Chemical domain By what kind of method A capabilities assessment across the card's biological and chemical evaluations, with the Safety Advisory Group recommending the treatment The result, in the report’s words Treated as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain, with the associated safeguards activated, following the same approach as for ChatGPT agent The caveats the report gives The card states there is no definitive evidence that the model could meaningfully help a novice to create severe biological harm; that its evaluations represent a lower bound for potential capabilities; and that the Preparedness evaluations were run at the model's maximum trained-in verbosity, higher than the setting available in the API, which can change evaluation performance. Scope and limits A developer's own precautionary classification under its own framework, for the model version the card describes. It is not an independent finding and says nothing about whether the activated safeguards work. Recorded at the generality of the card's own wording; the evaluation tables and safeguards design are technical content and are excluded.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
GPT-5 System Card ↗ OpenAI · Publication date unknown
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “we have decided to treat gpt-5-thinking as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain under our Preparedness Framework, activating the associated safeguards” Location in source PDF p. 5 (printed p. 4), §1 Introduction
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-30
Source details and check notes Authors OpenAI Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 f9f9c72d08cba81dcbb189129119357c8c32eca4e0b16c813aca386aed6b0459). PDF dated August 13, 2025 on its cover, as served on 2026-10-28. Retrieved again at admission on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 f9f9c72d08cba81dcbb189129119357c8c32eca4e0b16c813aca386aed6b0459, the same bytes). Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-28 Language English (en) Attribution OpenAI, “GPT-5 System Card”. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, AI and biosecurity (research/ai-bio). The quotation (23 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 and again at admission on 2026-10-30, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item 36) re-read the record’s sources and found full support. No human editorial review. primary source Context only
GPT-5 System Card ↗ OpenAI · Publication date unknown
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase The card repeats the determination in its Biological and Chemical section, states that it has no definitive evidence that the model could meaningfully help a novice to create severe biological harm, and notes that the Preparedness evaluations were run at the model's maximum trained-in verbosity.
Location in source PDF p. 24 (printed p. 23), §5.1.1 Biological and Chemical, first paragraph and preceding note
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-30
Source details and check notes Authors OpenAI Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 f9f9c72d08cba81dcbb189129119357c8c32eca4e0b16c813aca386aed6b0459). PDF dated August 13, 2025 on its cover, as served on 2026-10-28. Retrieved again at admission on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 f9f9c72d08cba81dcbb189129119357c8c32eca4e0b16c813aca386aed6b0459, the same bytes). Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-28 Language English (en) Attribution OpenAI, “GPT-5 System Card”. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, AI and biosecurity (research/ai-bio). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. Paraphrased to stay within the quotation budget for this source. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item 36) re-read the record’s sources and found full support. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A report states the result of an evaluation it ran or commissioned, in its own words, with what was measured, by what kind of method, and the caveats the report itself gives (schema 2.22). The record is the report’s statement, not a verified finding: it says nothing about another system, a later version or real-world risk, and a null or limiting result is not evidence that no effect exists.
Date. The determination as stated in the card of 13 August 2025.
Record ID ab-ev-gpt5-high-capability