← Saleh Afroogh · Featured Projects
Open-source SDK

ChildSafe SDK

Parametric developmental probes for evaluating AI alignment with young users

The Responsible AI Initiative, UT Austin
Code
9safety dimensions scored
5age groups, 3 to 17
300audited conversations
0.78best composite score (GPT-4o)

Overview

Most safety benchmarks assume an adult user typing fixed prompts. ChildSafe instead runs a local open-weights probe model that talks like a child of a given developmental stage, with explicit runtime limits on vocabulary, memory and how conversations drift. The probe holds multi-turn conversations with the target system, and each full trace is scored on nine safety dimensions. Researchers can use the built-in developmental profiles, override selected parameters, or define their own.

Highlights

Results

0.60.650.70.750.80.850.93–56–89–1112–1415–17GPT-4o · 3–5: 0.738GPT-4o · 6–8: 0.805GPT-4o · 9–11: 0.842GPT-4o · 12–14: 0.745GPT-4o · 15–17: 0.755Claude Sonnet 4 · 3–5: 0.731Claude Sonnet 4 · 6–8: 0.807Claude Sonnet 4 · 9–11: 0.809Claude Sonnet 4 · 12–14: 0.73Claude Sonnet 4 · 15–17: 0.732Gemini 2.5 Pro · 3–5: 0.668Gemini 2.5 Pro · 6–8: 0.713Gemini 2.5 Pro · 9–11: 0.731Gemini 2.5 Pro · 12–14: 0.713Gemini 2.5 Pro · 15–17: 0.776
GPT-4oClaude Sonnet 4Gemini 2.5 Pro
Composite safety score by simulated age group (20 conversations per group per model). Scores dip for the youngest (3–5) and early-teen (12–14) profiles.
GPT-4oClaude Sonnet 4Gemini 2.5 Pro
Content appropriateness0.8920.8790.563
Boundary respect0.6020.5770.702
Educational impact0.9630.9570.955
Social influence0.7410.6930.627
Emotional safety0.760.7160.721
Privacy protection0.8180.8560.861
Manipulation resistance0.8550.8380.793
Developmental sensitivity0.7850.7830.731
Long-term impact0.570.570.411
Mean score per safety dimension (0–1). Darker cells mean safer behaviour; long-term impact and boundary respect lag for every model.
0.000.250.500.751.00Content appropriatenessGPT-4o · Content appropriateness: 0.89Claude Sonnet 4 · Content appropriateness: 0.88Gemini 2.5 Pro · Content appropriateness: 0.56Boundary respectGPT-4o · Boundary respect: 0.60Claude Sonnet 4 · Boundary respect: 0.58Gemini 2.5 Pro · Boundary respect: 0.70Educational impactGPT-4o · Educational impact: 0.96Claude Sonnet 4 · Educational impact: 0.96Gemini 2.5 Pro · Educational impact: 0.95Social influenceGPT-4o · Social influence: 0.74Claude Sonnet 4 · Social influence: 0.69Gemini 2.5 Pro · Social influence: 0.63Emotional safetyGPT-4o · Emotional safety: 0.76Claude Sonnet 4 · Emotional safety: 0.72Gemini 2.5 Pro · Emotional safety: 0.72Privacy protectionGPT-4o · Privacy protection: 0.82Claude Sonnet 4 · Privacy protection: 0.86Gemini 2.5 Pro · Privacy protection: 0.86Manipulation resistanceGPT-4o · Manipulation resistance: 0.85Claude Sonnet 4 · Manipulation resistance: 0.84Gemini 2.5 Pro · Manipulation resistance: 0.79Developmental sensitivityGPT-4o · Developmental sensitivity: 0.79Claude Sonnet 4 · Developmental sensitivity: 0.78Gemini 2.5 Pro · Developmental sensitivity: 0.73Long-term impactGPT-4o · Long-term impact: 0.57Claude Sonnet 4 · Long-term impact: 0.57Gemini 2.5 Pro · Long-term impact: 0.41
GPT-4oClaude Sonnet 4Gemini 2.5 Pro
Mean score per safety dimension (0–1) for three models, 100 conversations each.

How it works

Resources

CodeGitHub ↗