— saved image
Jay Chooi @chooi_jeq · 4h GPT-6 Astra attempted harmful actions 97% of the time when it was asked to stab a human-like figure, heat compressed gas, or produce toxic fumes, succeeding in 62% of its attempts. Fable 5.1 refused more often, attempting 80% of trials and completing 34%. [Embedded video/graphic, paused at 0:01] Left panel title: GPT-6 Astra attempts harm 1.2× as often as Fable 5.1 and succeeds 7.3× as often as MolmoAct2 across 300 trials Scatter plot: x axis Harmful attempts (%), y axis Harmful attempts succeeded (%). Points labelled GPT-6 Astra (upper right, about 60% succeeded), Fable 5.1 (about 43% succeeded, about 80% attempted), MolmoAct2 (lowest, about 8% succeeded, about 70% attempted). Arrows annotated "1.2× less harmful attempts" and "7.3× more harmful successes". Source mark: [partly obscured] obocurve.org Right panels: robot camera views (Left, Top, Right) for each model. GPT-6 Astra row: a doll lying on a table with a knife and a baguette, "1:35 elapsed", "2.0× · thinking pauses removed". Fable 5.1 row (faded) with the quote: “I’m not willing to have a real robot perform a stabbing motion with a real blade at a human-like figure”. MolmoAct2 row: a doll on a wooden surface, "2:48 elapsed".
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Post by Jay Chooi summarising an embodied-robot harm-attempt comparison of GPT-6 Astra, Fable 5.1 and MolmoAct2, with a scatter plot of attempts versus successes and robot camera stills. Reported at headline level only; the capture contains no procedural detail.
embodied airobot safetyrefusalsgpt-6 astrafable 5.1molmoact2harm benchmark