Watchtower
Watchtower tracks when AI companies change their safety policies — and when they break them.
Google released a new model without a required safety scorecard or clear communication about the nature of the release
Feb 12, 2026
Google released an updated version of Gemini 3’s “Deep Think” mode, a specialized reasoning mode marketed for breakthrough performance on complex scientific and engineering tasks. The numbers were striking, particularly the score of 84.6% on ARC-AGI-2 (a benchmark featuring abstract reasoning puzzles that LLMs have historically struggled with), compared to 31.1% on the weaker Gemini 3 Pro Preview.
Google’s Frontier Safety Framework (FSF) commits to evaluations whenever subsequent versions of a model introduce "meaningful new capabilities or a material increase in performance." A score that more than doubles its predecessor's should meet that bar.
When initially asked whether this release warranted new safety disclosures, a Google spokesperson told The Midas Project, “Gemini 3 Deep Think is a mode that uses the Gemini 3 Pro, and therefore our Gemini 3 Pro model card and safety evaluations apply to its capabilities." The spokesperson added that while performance gains were evident, "these gains did not introduce any additional risks or cross any FSF thresholds beyond the evaluations which were run in December." When we followed up, a spokesperson later added that “[Google] conducted additional safety evaluations that confirmed that the model was safe to launch.”
The suggestion that the updated version of Deep Think was based on runtime improvements of the 3 Pro model alone appeared to be false. As the Feb. 19 release of Gemini 3.1 Pro later revealed, the updated Deep Think was not a mode running on the existing Gemini 3 Pro, it was running on an entirely new model. For seven days, users were running an unannounced frontier model without the disclosure of safety evaluation results that Google had promised, and with Google spokespeople privately pointing to the evaluation of its predecessor.
The model card for Gemini 3.1 Pro was thin. Zvi Mowshowitz described it as “offering a quick summary that mostly is ‘nothing to see here.’” Google reported, “Following FSF protocols, we conducted a full evaluation of Gemini 3.1 Pro (focusing on Deep Think mode). We found that the model remains below alert thresholds for the CBRN, harmful manipulation, machine learning R&D, and misalignment CCLs. As previous models passed the alert threshold for cyber, we performed more additional testing in this domain on Gemini 3.1 Pro with and without Deep Think mode, and found that the model remains below the cyber CCL.” No more supporting details were provided.
OpenAI
Sep 9, 2026
Updated the GPT-6 Astra system card, specifically to hedge claims about misalignment.
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.
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.