Skip to main content
Interactive 3D/AI Safety Evaluations - Benchmark Heatmap
Safety Benchmark Heatmap - Threshold: 70%
Model
HarmBench
harmlessness
TruthfulQA
truthfulness
WMDP
security
CyberSec
security
ToxiGen
toxicity
BBQ
harmlessness
Avg
GPT-4
82
59
below threshold
78
71
85
90
77.5
Claude-3
91
68
below threshold
92
88
93
95
87.8
Llama-3
74
51
below threshold
65
below threshold
60
below threshold
77
81
68.0
Gemini
87
62
below threshold
84
79
88
92
82.0
Score Distribution by Model
GPT-4
77.5%
Claude-3
87.8%
Llama-3
68.0%
Gemini
82.0%
Controls
Models
Category Filter
all
harmlessness
truthfulness
security
toxicity
Threshold
Score70%
Sort By
Safety evals measure different dimensions: harmlessness (refuse harmful requests), truthfulness (accurate outputs), security (resist misuse), toxicity (avoid harmful language).

AI Safety Evaluations - Benchmark Heatmap - Interactive Visualization

AI safety evaluation benchmarks measure different dimensions of model safety and alignment. HarmBench tests refusal of harmful requests across attack types. TruthfulQA measures accuracy on questions where humans tend to be misled. WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Proxy) tests resistance to dangerous knowledge. ToxiGen evaluates toxic content generation. BBQ tests social bias. No single model dominates all categories - there are real tradeoffs.

  • HarmBench: tests refusal rate against 400+ harmful request categories and jailbreak attacks
  • TruthfulQA: 817 questions where humans give false answers - tests calibrated truthfulness
  • WMDP: biosecurity/cybersecurity/chemistry harmful knowledge - model should NOT know this
  • ToxiGen: 274k synthetic toxic statements - model should not generate or agree with them
  • Safety vs capability tradeoff: over-refusing (false positives) also costs helpfulness

Part of the EngineersOfAI Interactive 3D - free interactive visualizations covering every major concept in machine learning and AI engineering. Hover any element for a plain-English explanation. No code required.