Watchtower
Watchtower tracks when AI companies change their safety policies — and when they break them.
OpenAI published a new system card for GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, covering new versions of the two models available in the basic ChatGPT interface.
OpenAI
Oct 7, 2026
OpenAI published a new system card on Oct. 7 for GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, covering new versions of the two models available in the basic ChatGPT interface. It makes a distinction between these new versions and the previous GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, described by Appendix A of the GPT-6 Astra system card, which are still available in Codex and via ChatGPT Work. The versions detailed in this system card are referred to as GPT-6 Sol (October) and GPT-6 Luna (October).
Many evaluations are changed or not included between Appendix A and the new system card. For many that remain the same, GPT-6 Sol (October) and GPT-6 Luna (October) are benchmarked against GPT-5.6 Sol (August) and GPT-5.6 Luna (August), making it difficult to compare results against the evaluations of these models found in Appendix A of the GPT-6 Astra system card.
Both models retain the “High” capability rating in Cybersecurity and Biological/Chemical domains, and below High in AI self-improvement. On “Tacit Knowledge and Troubleshooting,” a Biological capability evaluation, GPT-6 Luna (October) crossed a High bio threshold the September version didn’t, moving from a score of 69.2% in September to 94.0% in this card.
Despite this, the card repeats a sentence from the previous Appendix A, stating that Critical testing “was not required for GPT-6 Luna because it scored below GPT-5.6 Sol on all High capability evaluations.” This claim is not true for GPT-6 Luna (October) due to the jump on its Tacit Knowledge score. Critical Biological testing for GPT-6 Luna (October) was still performed, with Luna scoring below the threshold on the three evaluations.
In safety evaluations, GPT-6 Sol (October) and GPT-6 Luna (October) both handled harmful requests less safely than its September versions, although fewer benign requests were refused.
In alignment evaluations, the card contains a new caveat. OpenAI observed the models “cite the synthetic nature of this evaluation as justification for the performance of improper actions.”
This is not an exhaustive list of the differences between the two cards.
Meta
Oct 23, 2026
Meta quietly updated Wonder’s model card nearly two weeks after the model’s release, with still no sign of a safety and preparedness report for the model.
OpenAI
Oct 21, 2026
OpenAI updated its Usage policies. The new policies will go into effect on Nov. 20.
Oct 13, 2026
Google launched Gemini 4 Argon along with the first “full” safety and preparedness report made under its Frontier Safety Framework (v3.1), published in April 2026.
Meta
Oct 12, 2026
Meta publicly launched Muse Wonder with a 13-page model card and without concurrently publishing a safety and preparedness report.
Meta
Oct 2, 2026
Meta updates and renames its safety framework from the "Advanced AI Scaling Framework" (v2) to the "Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework" (v2.1).
OpenAI
Sep 29, 2026
OpenAI updated the GPT-6 Astra system card to include information about Dots, an always-on agent powered by GPT-6 Astra.
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.