The Watchtower Imperative: Lifespan-Calibrated Evaluation for Frontier AI

Current frontier AI safety evaluations emphasize static benchmarks, third-party annotations, and red-teaming. In this position paper, we argue that AI safety research should focus on human-centered evaluations that measure harmful capability uplift: the marginal increase in a user's ability to cause harm with a frontier model beyond what conventional tools already enable. We frame harmful capability uplift as a core AI safety metric, ground it in prior social science research, and provide concrete methodological guidance for systematic measurement. We conclude with actionable steps for developers, researchers, funders, and regulators to make harmful capability uplift evaluation a standard practice.

AI companions powered by large language models increasingly interact with cognition-developing users, including children and adolescents, creating risks that may accumulate over time. Existing safety evaluations largely rely on single-turn or short-session tests, which cannot capture risks that emerge only through prolonged interaction. To address this gap, we propose TSJ (Theater-Stage-Judge), a longitudinal framework combining persona-driven user simulation, dynamic psychological-state updating and retrospective evaluation. We evaluate six mainstream models across four developmental stages, twenty-four risk dimensions and three psychological-vulnerability personas, covering 12,960 simulated person-day interactions. TSJ shows that short-horizon testing systematically underestimates developmental risks, for which TSJ yields a stable risk estimate only after 140 turns within prolonged simulated relationships. Applying TSJ further identifies early childhood and emerging adulthood as the most vulnerable stages, with cognitive trust and emotional dependency as the weakest domains. TSJ provides a scalable methodology for longitudinal cognitive developmental risk evaluation in AI companion systems.

AI systems are increasingly present in children's everyday environments: education, entertainment, social networks, and toys. Their safety is typically assessed at the model level, through benchmarks, red-teaming, and content filtering. However, most AI harm taxonomies lack child-specific evidence and under-specify developmental harm and the stakeholder asymmetries unique to minors. Building on prior taxonomies, we construct a child-centered harm taxonomy mapped to sociotechnical failure modes. We curate and code 1331 publicly reported child-related AI incidents, annotating internal and external harm types and the failure mode implicated in each incident. Our analysis reveals which harms are most prevalent in public reporting, how individual-level and population-level harms relate, and which failures are most often coded alongside harm. We find that harm concentrates in representational, dignity-related, and psychological categories, and co-occurs most often with deployment-context, governance, and misuse failures rather than model defects. Harm to an individual child is also frequently linked to population-level harm, reaching children who never interacted with the system. These findings suggest that model-level evaluations, while necessary, cannot by themselves anticipate the harm pathways most often documented for children. We conclude with actionable implications emphasizing mitigations beyond model-level safeguards such as content filtering: age assurance, consent verification for depiction, safety-by-design UX constraints, incident disclosure norms, and auditing regimes targeting developmental risk. Privacy-minimized annotations, a codebook, and documentation are available at https://github.com/The-Responsible-AI-Initiative/KidAID.