Watchtower
Watchtower tracks when AI companies change their safety policies — and when they break them.
Anthropic updated its Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) from v3.3 to v3.4. Including changes to the Automated R&D "dramatic acceleration" trigger and adjusting Risk
Anthropic
Jul 8, 2026
Anthropic updated its Responsible Scaling policy from v3.3 to v3.4. The previous wording required observing or expecting double the rate of progress relative to the rate expected in the absence of significant AI contributions to AI R&D. V3.4 now requires doubling relative to both that expected rate and the fastest rate of extended progress previously observed in the absence of significant AI contributions, with a new footnote defining "extended" as spanning at least three model generations. A related clause was changed from trends that "could" lead to greater acceleration to trends that "seem likely to" do so. The stated rationale is that under v3.3, the threshold could trigger even if overall progress were flat or slowing, so long as progress was estimated to be dramatically faster than it would be without advanced AI tools, which Anthropic argues does not indicate the onset of recursive self-improvement, since deceleration from non-AI factors could plausibly continue to offset acceleration from AI-driven gains. The mitigations tied to the threshold are unchanged.
V3.4 also includes multiple changes to Risk Reports. The first change is to its scope, a report will now cover the risks of Anthropic’s models and actions as of a given coverage date, which will be no more than 30 days prior to the reports publication. This includes both publicly deployed models and internally deployed models that meet specific requirements. The second change was around redactions in the Risk Reports, adding a clause that they also aim to minimize redactions of the versions of the report shared with “all regular-clearance Anthropic employees.” Anthropic also added that they would disclose the existence of each redaction made in the public version of the report and aim to give a brief justification for such redactions. v3.4 also adds a clause that Risk Reports will be shared with “at least one external reviewer, but we may choose to split the review process across different external reviewers based on subject matter expertise.” Finally, v3.4 changes who sees the final, unredacted Risk Reports; they now set a number, at least 200 Anthropic employees. They will also share a minimally-redacted version with all of Anthropic’s regular-clearance staff. Previously, all Anthropic’s regular-clearance staff had visibility into the fully unredacted reports. Anthropic discloses and justifies this stating that some information may be both material to the risk assessment and sensitive enough to merit greater internal compartmentalization, especially given the company’s ongoing growth.
OpenAI
Aug 18, 2026
OpenAI updated its Model Spec, the document outlining intended model behavior
xAI
Aug 17, 2026
xAI updated Grok 4.6's model card after release. A changelog was included.
Aug 14, 2026
Google updated its Gemini 3.7 Flash model card after publication, making changes to language in the “Key Results for Gemini 3.7 Flash” column in the Frontier Safety Assessment section
OpenAI
Aug 3, 2026
OpenAI updated its system card for two of its models: GPT 5.6 and GPT Live.
xAI
Jul 20, 2026
xAI made changes throughout the model card for Grok 4.5, including some that appear to be persistent errors
Frequently asked questions
Have more questions? Our team is happy to help, contact us.
We engage in a combination of research, outreach, and public advocacy to ensure that AI companies are meeting public expectations and living up to their past promises, in order to ensure responsible AI development and deployment.
We review technical literature, regulatory guidance, and case studies to distill concrete measures that will meaningfully improve public safety — such as frontier-model risk assessments, red-teaming requirements, and whistle-blower protections — and advocate for the most important voluntary steps that companies can take today to ensure they are acting responsibly.
We also monitor whether companies follow their stated policies and industry norms. When we find evidence of back-tracking or inadequate risk controls, we document it and call for corrective action — mobilizing employees, customers, and civil-society allies until the company adopts the necessary safeguards.
Finally, we publicize our research to inform the public of how AI companies stack up on safety and responsibility. We release our work in the form of scorecards, independent reports, open letters, and long-form writing so that regulators, investors, and the wider public can see how individual developers perform on safety and responsibility.
Various AI experts including Nick Bostrom and Stuart Russell have compared the development of advanced AI to the myth of King Midas.
According to legend, King Midas was once granted one wish by the god Dionysus: that everything he touched would turn to gold. At first, he was thrilled with his new powers. But the King soon discovered that he couldn’t touch food, water, or even his family without instantly turning them to metal. In other words, he got exactly what he wanted in pursuit of immense wealth — and it turned out it wasn’t what he wanted at all.
Much like King Midas, AI companies are now eagerly pursuing incredible wealth and power by developing increasingly powerful AI systems. But ensuring that these systems act in alignment with our values is still an unsolved technical problem. If we misspecify even a single goal for these systems, how will we prevent them from causing an incredible catastrophe – if they follow our instructions at all?
In the words of Stuart Russell, “If you continue on the current path, the better AI gets, the worse things get for us. For any given incorrectly stated objective, the better a system achieves that objective, the worse it is.” The Midas Project exists to ensure that AI companies do not take this extraordinary gamble without public accountability and oversight.
The Midas Project is a nonprofit organization founded in early 2024 by Tyler Johnston. Our work is supported by a small core team and a wider base of volunteers and supporters. We are a nonprofit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization that relies on donations from the public.
No. One of our central values is being pro-technology.
Progress in technology has improved lives for millions of people around the globe (after all, without it, we wouldn’t have penicillin, air conditioning, or the internet). Artificial intelligence is already being used to help improve medicine, education, and overall living standards. We believe this progress should continue, and we hope AI will be a positive force in the world.
But we may not be on track to realize this future. Without technical breakthroughs, we risk developing powerful AI systems that act against user intent, or can be misused by bad actors to cause tremendous harm. Powerful AI could also concentrate unprecedented power among a handful of AI companies and exacerbate social inequality. To avoid these downsides, AI must be developed with caution, transparency, and public oversight. That’s why The Midas Project is committed to raising awareness about the risks of AI and ensuring that everyone is given a chance to make their voice heard.
If you’d like to get involved, consider signing up for our newsletter, joining as an official volunteer, or making a charitable donation today.
You can email us at info@themidasproject.com, or reach out via the form on our contact page.