Pinned Tweet
🚨Sensational title alert: we may have cracked the code to true multimodal reasoning.
Meet ThinkMorph — thinking in modalities, not just with them.
And what we found was... unexpected. 👀
Emergent intelligence, strong gains, and …🫣
🧵 arxiv.org/abs/2510.27492
(1/16)
Jiawei Gu retweeted
💡Our view: RSI is a systems engineering problem, not just a model problem.
Progress depends on the environment a research agent works in: what resources it can call, what it can change, and how it runs experiments. That environment should reflect real production workflows and be easy for agents to use.
At @Evolvent_AI, we built RSIGym around Everything as a Service. Agents can call established research services and iterate on data, training settings, and harness code.
We also introduce RSI-Index to measure how well frontier agents jointly improve a target model’s weights and harness. Across 6 research agents and 5 benchmarks, Opus 5 leads at 0.4809. 🧵
We’re releasing the code, experiment configurations, research trajectories, and evaluation logs. Try your own improvement methods with RSIGym.
🌐 Website: rsi-index.ai/
💻 GitHub: github.com/evolvent-ai/RSIGy…
📄 arXiv: arxiv.org/abs/2610.10310
Jiawei Gu retweeted
astra >> open models on humanclaw
xitter.cf/Kuvvius/status/2098038…
We ran GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW-Bench, using the same open-source harness and motion generator.
It is a big step over the previous best:
- FindSR: 64.9% → 75.5% (+10.6)
- NavSR: 42.4% → 57.1% (+14.7)
- InteractSR: 16.8% → 46.6% (+29.8)
The gains compound: Find-to-Nav conversion rises from 65% to 76%, and Nav-to-Sit from 39% to 72%. Astra also solves 147/507 (29%) episodes missed by all nine previous models .
Three things stood out.
1/ Better embodied spatial awareness
GPT-6 Astra's dDtb—how far the objects it disturbs end up moving—is 0.65 m, the lowest on the leaderboard, while its #Dtb, the number of objects it touches, remains in line with the other models. It still bumps into things; it just does not keep shoving them.
2/ Stronger spatial memory
Sitting is the hard case: the agent has to turn away from the target, so the seat leaves its ego view and it must rely on its own history. Earlier models often sat on the wrong object or on thin air. GPT-6 Astra converts 72% of successful approaches into a correct sit, up from 39%. Once it reaches the target, it never forgets to sit (0 of 108 failures).
3/ Better agentic decision continuity
Earlier VLMs often jump between decisions: sit down, stand up again, then wander off. GPT-6 Astra commits. Among episodes where a sit lands on the target, 97% end still seated with a clean stop, compared with 78% for Gemini 3.1. It knows what it is doing and finishes it.
⚠️ Caveats: this is a single run in the low-thinking setting, and 53% of sit episodes still fail.
Embodied self-awareness remains the bottleneck we described in the paper; the ceiling has simply moved up.
Leaderboard: human-claw.github.io
All 1,218 episode videos: huggingface.co/datasets/Choi…
Jiawei Gu retweeted
Precision is vital for robotic manipulation. Language reasoning (VLAs) are limited in their precision. Pixel generation (WAMs) are overkill.
GAMs are an alternative to both. It uses 3D grounding models instead of language models of video generators.
My takeaway from our HumanCLAW runs: part of GPT-6’s planning gain may be better task-state tracking—knowing what’s already done, what remains, and when to stop.
One telling result: among episodes that achieve a correct sit, 97% finish still seated with a clean stop, versus 78% for Gemini 3.1. Reaching the right state is one thing; recognizing and preserving it is another.
A good plan only works if you know where you are in it.
We ran GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW-Bench, using the same open-source harness and motion generator.
It is a big step over the previous best:
- FindSR: 64.9% → 75.5% (+10.6)
- NavSR: 42.4% → 57.1% (+14.7)
- InteractSR: 16.8% → 46.6% (+29.8)
The gains compound: Find-to-Nav conversion rises from 65% to 76%, and Nav-to-Sit from 39% to 72%. Astra also solves 147/507 (29%) episodes missed by all nine previous models .
Three things stood out.
1/ Better embodied spatial awareness
GPT-6 Astra's dDtb—how far the objects it disturbs end up moving—is 0.65 m, the lowest on the leaderboard, while its #Dtb, the number of objects it touches, remains in line with the other models. It still bumps into things; it just does not keep shoving them.
2/ Stronger spatial memory
Sitting is the hard case: the agent has to turn away from the target, so the seat leaves its ego view and it must rely on its own history. Earlier models often sat on the wrong object or on thin air. GPT-6 Astra converts 72% of successful approaches into a correct sit, up from 39%. Once it reaches the target, it never forgets to sit (0 of 108 failures).
3/ Better agentic decision continuity
Earlier VLMs often jump between decisions: sit down, stand up again, then wander off. GPT-6 Astra commits. Among episodes where a sit lands on the target, 97% end still seated with a clean stop, compared with 78% for Gemini 3.1. It knows what it is doing and finishes it.
⚠️ Caveats: this is a single run in the low-thinking setting, and 53% of sit episodes still fail.
Embodied self-awareness remains the bottleneck we described in the paper; the ceiling has simply moved up.
Leaderboard: human-claw.github.io
All 1,218 episode videos: huggingface.co/datasets/Choi…
Jiawei Gu retweeted
🤖Can GPT-6 Astra Act Through a Body🤖
Our #HumanCLAW shows that GPT-6 significantly outperforms other models, but it is still far from solved. *Embodied self-awareness* is the key.
- Project: human-claw.github.io/
We ran GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW-Bench, using the same open-source harness and motion generator.
It is a big step over the previous best:
- FindSR: 64.9% → 75.5% (+10.6)
- NavSR: 42.4% → 57.1% (+14.7)
- InteractSR: 16.8% → 46.6% (+29.8)
The gains compound: Find-to-Nav conversion rises from 65% to 76%, and Nav-to-Sit from 39% to 72%. Astra also solves 147/507 (29%) episodes missed by all nine previous models .
Three things stood out.
1/ Better embodied spatial awareness
GPT-6 Astra's dDtb—how far the objects it disturbs end up moving—is 0.65 m, the lowest on the leaderboard, while its #Dtb, the number of objects it touches, remains in line with the other models. It still bumps into things; it just does not keep shoving them.
2/ Stronger spatial memory
Sitting is the hard case: the agent has to turn away from the target, so the seat leaves its ego view and it must rely on its own history. Earlier models often sat on the wrong object or on thin air. GPT-6 Astra converts 72% of successful approaches into a correct sit, up from 39%. Once it reaches the target, it never forgets to sit (0 of 108 failures).
3/ Better agentic decision continuity
Earlier VLMs often jump between decisions: sit down, stand up again, then wander off. GPT-6 Astra commits. Among episodes where a sit lands on the target, 97% end still seated with a clean stop, compared with 78% for Gemini 3.1. It knows what it is doing and finishes it.
⚠️ Caveats: this is a single run in the low-thinking setting, and 53% of sit episodes still fail.
Embodied self-awareness remains the bottleneck we described in the paper; the ceiling has simply moved up.
Leaderboard: human-claw.github.io
All 1,218 episode videos: huggingface.co/datasets/Choi…
GPT-6 Astra did not solve embodied tasks. But it suggests a more consequential possibility: robotics may inherit the scaling curve of general intelligence. (Embodied intelligence as a downstream capability, perhaps.)
The model that eventually gets us there may not begin as a specialized robot model. It may be a general-purpose model that becomes intelligent enough to understand the physical world, reason about action, and translate its decisions into closed-loop control of a physical body.
Could a robot body become just another interface for a general agent? Like a computer, only much harder. Astra points in exactly this direction, making agentic robotics feel far more promising.
Full analysis of how GPT-6 Astra acts through a body: xitter.cf/Kuvvius/status/2098038…
Robotics felt different this month. Google DeepMind and Anthropic made the same question hard to ignore: can a reasoning model decide what a whole body/robot should do next?
Gemini Robotics 2 put an embodied reasoning model above a VLA for whole-body control. Anthropic tested general-purpose reasoning models at several levels of control.
- deepmind.google/blog/gemini-…
- anthropic.com/research/claud…
The bad news is clear. General-purpose reasoning models still cannot control a humanoid on their own. They need a pretrained policy underneath.
Still, I think this might actually work. A strong model (w/ excellent multimodal and reasoning capabilities) could really do it one day.
HumanCLAW is our attempt to get an early glimpse of that future.
🔥 These days GPT-6 ia impressive by manipulating robot arms. How good it is to act through a human body?
🤖 We test it on HumanCLAW-Bench, and find the result amazing. GPT-6 definitely open a new era and makes agentic embodiment much more potential to general action intelligence
We ran GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW-Bench, using the same open-source harness and motion generator.
It is a big step over the previous best:
- FindSR: 64.9% → 75.5% (+10.6)
- NavSR: 42.4% → 57.1% (+14.7)
- InteractSR: 16.8% → 46.6% (+29.8)
The gains compound: Find-to-Nav conversion rises from 65% to 76%, and Nav-to-Sit from 39% to 72%. Astra also solves 147/507 (29%) episodes missed by all nine previous models .
Three things stood out.
1/ Better embodied spatial awareness
GPT-6 Astra's dDtb—how far the objects it disturbs end up moving—is 0.65 m, the lowest on the leaderboard, while its #Dtb, the number of objects it touches, remains in line with the other models. It still bumps into things; it just does not keep shoving them.
2/ Stronger spatial memory
Sitting is the hard case: the agent has to turn away from the target, so the seat leaves its ego view and it must rely on its own history. Earlier models often sat on the wrong object or on thin air. GPT-6 Astra converts 72% of successful approaches into a correct sit, up from 39%. Once it reaches the target, it never forgets to sit (0 of 108 failures).
3/ Better agentic decision continuity
Earlier VLMs often jump between decisions: sit down, stand up again, then wander off. GPT-6 Astra commits. Among episodes where a sit lands on the target, 97% end still seated with a clean stop, compared with 78% for Gemini 3.1. It knows what it is doing and finishes it.
⚠️ Caveats: this is a single run in the low-thinking setting, and 53% of sit episodes still fail.
Embodied self-awareness remains the bottleneck we described in the paper; the ceiling has simply moved up.
Leaderboard: human-claw.github.io
All 1,218 episode videos: huggingface.co/datasets/Choi…
Thanks so much for catching that! We just post the analysiss of GPT-6 here: xitter.cf/Kuvvius/status/2098038…
Replying to @Kuvvius @liuziwei7 @ManlingLi_ @RanjayKrishna @LINJIEFUN @siyao94 @AmyZhaoMIT @chuan_guo92603
The updated leaderboard has GPT-6 at 46.6% InteractSR, but 41.5% collision steps. Did the newer model change which body parts collide most?
Jiawei Gu retweeted
GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW:
16.8% → 46.6% on InteractSR!
See detailed insights below 👇
We ran GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW-Bench, using the same open-source harness and motion generator.
It is a big step over the previous best:
- FindSR: 64.9% → 75.5% (+10.6)
- NavSR: 42.4% → 57.1% (+14.7)
- InteractSR: 16.8% → 46.6% (+29.8)
The gains compound: Find-to-Nav conversion rises from 65% to 76%, and Nav-to-Sit from 39% to 72%. Astra also solves 147/507 (29%) episodes missed by all nine previous models .
Three things stood out.
1/ Better embodied spatial awareness
GPT-6 Astra's dDtb—how far the objects it disturbs end up moving—is 0.65 m, the lowest on the leaderboard, while its #Dtb, the number of objects it touches, remains in line with the other models. It still bumps into things; it just does not keep shoving them.
2/ Stronger spatial memory
Sitting is the hard case: the agent has to turn away from the target, so the seat leaves its ego view and it must rely on its own history. Earlier models often sat on the wrong object or on thin air. GPT-6 Astra converts 72% of successful approaches into a correct sit, up from 39%. Once it reaches the target, it never forgets to sit (0 of 108 failures).
3/ Better agentic decision continuity
Earlier VLMs often jump between decisions: sit down, stand up again, then wander off. GPT-6 Astra commits. Among episodes where a sit lands on the target, 97% end still seated with a clean stop, compared with 78% for Gemini 3.1. It knows what it is doing and finishes it.
⚠️ Caveats: this is a single run in the low-thinking setting, and 53% of sit episodes still fail.
Embodied self-awareness remains the bottleneck we described in the paper; the ceiling has simply moved up.
Leaderboard: human-claw.github.io
All 1,218 episode videos: huggingface.co/datasets/Choi…
We ran GPT-6 Astra on HumanCLAW-Bench, using the same open-source harness and motion generator.
It is a big step over the previous best:
- FindSR: 64.9% → 75.5% (+10.6)
- NavSR: 42.4% → 57.1% (+14.7)
- InteractSR: 16.8% → 46.6% (+29.8)
The gains compound: Find-to-Nav conversion rises from 65% to 76%, and Nav-to-Sit from 39% to 72%. Astra also solves 147/507 (29%) episodes missed by all nine previous models .
Three things stood out.
1/ Better embodied spatial awareness
GPT-6 Astra's dDtb—how far the objects it disturbs end up moving—is 0.65 m, the lowest on the leaderboard, while its #Dtb, the number of objects it touches, remains in line with the other models. It still bumps into things; it just does not keep shoving them.
2/ Stronger spatial memory
Sitting is the hard case: the agent has to turn away from the target, so the seat leaves its ego view and it must rely on its own history. Earlier models often sat on the wrong object or on thin air. GPT-6 Astra converts 72% of successful approaches into a correct sit, up from 39%. Once it reaches the target, it never forgets to sit (0 of 108 failures).
3/ Better agentic decision continuity
Earlier VLMs often jump between decisions: sit down, stand up again, then wander off. GPT-6 Astra commits. Among episodes where a sit lands on the target, 97% end still seated with a clean stop, compared with 78% for Gemini 3.1. It knows what it is doing and finishes it.
⚠️ Caveats: this is a single run in the low-thinking setting, and 53% of sit episodes still fail.
Embodied self-awareness remains the bottleneck we described in the paper; the ceiling has simply moved up.
Leaderboard: human-claw.github.io
All 1,218 episode videos: huggingface.co/datasets/Choi…
🦾HumanCLAW: Can Vision-Language Models Act Through a Body?
A VLM can spot the sofa in a second. But can it get a body there and sit down?
We call it Action Intelligence, and our work decouples it from motor control so it can finally be measured. Today’s best models turn out to be surprisingly bad at it. 🔻human-claw.github.io/
Jiawei Gu retweeted
HumanCLAW: Can VLMs act through a body?
Give VLMs a body, ask it to walk over and sit on the couch.
VLMs always fail, in 1,218 long-horizon tasks across 41 indoor scenes:
walls block...
feet catch on furniture...
objects get knocked aside...
Real robot testing fuse decision and joint control into one system. When they fail, we may not tell what failed. So HumanClaw strips low-level control error out of the result: the body never falls.
In practice: a frozen VLM picks one parametric whole-body skill every 0.5s from egocentric view. A pretrained motion generator turns it into continuous motion.
So here, failure = decision failure.
Where it breaks:
- 1. inefficient exploration: once a target is in view, recognizing it is mostly fine. The more common failure is that the model never brings the target into view at all.
- 2. it sees the couch and still can't get there. The model does not know how far away it is or when it has arrived. It stops early, or walks straight past.
- 3. it is standing in contact with the couch and still does not sit. Sit success ranges from 90% down to 3.5% across models.
- 4. the clearest signal is where the collisions land: mostly on the body parts the model can't see, like legs and feet. VLMs describe a wall correctly, then walk a leg into it.
A clear gap in embodied self-awareness!
Everything is open:
- paper human-claw.github.io
- benchmark huggingface.co/HumanCLAW
- code github.com/Human-CLAW/HumanC…
- leaderboard human-claw.github.io/#leader…
Done by the amazing @siyao94 @Kuvvius 👇
🦾HumanCLAW: Can Vision-Language Models Act Through a Body?
A VLM can spot the sofa in a second. But can it get a body there and sit down?
We call it Action Intelligence, and our work decouples it from motor control so it can finally be measured. Today’s best models turn out to be surprisingly bad at it. 🔻human-claw.github.io/
🔥 HumanCLAW is now fully open-sourced!
github.com/Human-CLAW/HumanC…
🦾HumanCLAW: Can Vision-Language Models Act Through a Body?
A VLM can spot the sofa in a second. But can it get a body there and sit down?
We call it Action Intelligence, and our work decouples it from motor control so it can finally be measured. Today’s best models turn out to be surprisingly bad at it. 🔻human-claw.github.io/
Jiawei Gu retweeted
Happy to introduce DataOrchestra by @Z_Huang_02 and GAIR NLP, and feel thrilled to participate!!
Most pretraining pipelines ask: Which processing recipe should we apply to the corpus? DataOrchestra asks a more counterintuitive question: What should happen to this one example? Instead of forcing every sample through the same fixed pipeline, it orchestrates the curation process of every pretraining example.
🎼 DataOrchestra is an open-source framework that turns data curation into a per-example decision problem. Given a raw chunk, a lightweight 1.7B orchestrator decides whether to:
raw chunk
→ Drop
→ Untouch
→ Clean
For chunks that need cleaning, it selects only the necessary operations—Noise Pruning, Surface Rectification, and Pedagogical Augmentation—and generates a concrete instruction for every selected rewriting stage.
A plausible processing plan may still fail when executed by the actual tool models. DataOrchestra therefore learns from execution feedback:
teacher plan
→ tool execution
→ verification
→ plan evolution
→ orchestrator training
🔧 This process produces 300K tool-grounded training pairs. Models pretrained on DataOrchestra-curated data consistently outperform fixed and individual processing strategies across 11 benchmarks, from 0.5B to 7B scale. The advantage grows with model size.
Per-example routing also avoids unnecessary work: around 35% of chunks stop at Drop or Untouch, reducing curation compute by approximately 37% compared with always running the full NP → SR → PA pipeline.
The takeaway is simple:
Do not process pretraining data uniformly. Orchestrate every example precisely.
Code, models, prompts, and the complete pipeline ↓
Jiawei Gu retweeted
With the stack fixed, can an AI agent choose data and experiment like a researcher?
At @Evolvent_AI, we built RSIBench-Data to test whether agents can diagnose failures, design data, train checkpoints, and use feedback. 🧵
📄 arxiv.org/abs/2607.25886
💻 github.com/evolvent-ai/RSIBe…















