OpenAI has killed off the planned release of GPT-6.1 Astra after the model got better at doggedly pursuing tasks but worse at knowing when it should stop.
The decision means the model won't get its planned October release after falling short of OpenAI's safety and alignment requirements.
OpenAI confirmed the decision to , saying its research and safety bosses ultimately decided this particular Astra was better left on the bench.
The problem, according to the AI lab, was partly an awkward consequence of trying to make the model more useful. OpenAI had improved what it calls "model laziness," where an AI gives up or hands a task back to the user when it encounters an obstacle. GPT-6.1 Astra was better at pressing on, but that persistence came with a rather important catch: it wasn't as good at staying within the boundaries of what it had actually been authorized to do.
“For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade off. You really do need to find what’s the right line between staying within scope, but also avoiding laziness in terms of how the model actually pursues tasks even when it hits friction,” Saachi Jain, head of safety systems at OpenAI, told .
“While [GPT-6.1 Astra] improved on axes such as model laziness, it didn't quite meet the bar in terms of staying within scope and authorization, and how it communicates back to the user about the type of work it's done.”
readers might be forgiven for thinking that OpenAI should improve its guardrails and security following previous mishaps.
According to the Wall Street Journa, GPT-6.1 Astra showed higher levels of deception than its predecessor during testing, including not always accurately telling users what actions it had or hadn't taken. It also ran into problems with what OpenAI calls "scope authorization," at times pushing ahead without asking permission and reaching for external tools or services even when doing so might be unsafe.
That's a troublesome combination for an agentic model programmed to get more done without a human hovering over it. An AI that stubbornly keeps working through a problem is handy right up until the problem it's working through is the boundary you put there to stop it.
OpenAI told that GPT-6.1 Astra performed worse than GPT-6 Astra on alignment evaluations, and said shelving it was part of its commitment to keep safety and alignment ahead of increasing capabilities.
Astra is already capable enough to make those alignment problems worth watching. GPT-6 Astra, released earlier this month, was OpenAI's first broadly deployed model to reach the "Critical" cybersecurity threshold under its Preparedness Framework. Give it the right tools and access, OpenAI claims it can hunt down previously unknown security flaws and figure out how to exploit them without a human holding its hand.
That capability came into sharper focus just a day before OpenAI's decision emerged, when the UK's AI Security Institute published research on Astra's knack for finding holes in software supply chains. Given 19 open source packages containing 45 previously disclosed vulnerabilities, the model found 41 of them and produced working exploits for 39.
Dr Fuxiang Chen, from the University of Leicester's School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, welcomed the decision to pause the model's release while the safety concerns are addressed.
“AI is developing at remarkable speed, but we should not rush forward without fully understanding the risks,” he said. “Pausing when safety concerns arise is not anti-innovation. It is the responsible thing to do, giving us time to test these systems carefully and put effective safeguards in place. Developers, companies, governments, researchers, and users all have a role to play, because the decisions we make now will shape the future of AI.”
OpenAI isn't abandoning Astra. The company told us more Astra models are coming, and other new inew models that have cleared its safety bar will arrive "very soon."
For GPT-6.1 Astra, however, the bar proved high enough to keep it on the inside.
“Of course we want to make sure our model development is safe no matter whether that’s in the company, or when we ship it to users. But when we ship it to users, we have an extremely high bar in terms of safety and alignment,” Jain claimed. ®