A new study tracks how well general-purpose frontier multimodal models can control a physical robot with no robotics-specific training, and finds the curve is steep. The authors ran nine models in fifteen configurations (reasoning-effort levels and service tiers) from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind, including GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6.1 Sol, Opus 5.5, Gemini 3.8 Flash and Gemini 4 Argon, on a bimanual I2RT YAM arm rig with two wrist cameras and an overhead camera. The models emit Cartesian gripper poses directly through a closed-loop harness built on the Inspect Robots framework, with move_to, done and give_up actions, a 40-action budget per trial, and partial-credit subtask scoring graded from video by GPT-6 Astra.
The task set is six RoboDojo tasks: stacking bowls, storing objects in a safe, sorting, capping a pen, pouring fruit and standing up bottles, with 20 trials per model, configuration and task. Between July and October 2026 the best task scores doubled roughly every 53.9 days, with a bootstrap 95% interval of about 36 to 60 days, and the strongest models now average 45 to 48 percent. Throughput moved even faster: the best subtasks-per-hour rose from 12.4 to 54.4, about 4.4 times, between July and September, and the lowest cost per subtask fell from $2.36 to $0.38, about 6.2 times. No single model dominates the frontier. GPT-6 Astra at high effort was fastest at about 1.1 minutes per subtask but cost about $4.51 per subtask, while Gemini 3.8 Flash was cheapest but took about 4.2 minutes.
The qualitative findings matter as much as the trend line. Models rarely get stuck or loop; stronger models cope better with physical imperfections such as arm sag, camera parallax and ambiguous grasp feedback; and low scores mostly come from irreversible physical errors rather than failures of task reasoning. In comments, the authors note that specialized robotics foundation models they tried were outperformed on this benchmark by the general models, though the specialized models are built for a different regime. A fuller write-up has been submitted to a CoRL workshop.
The caveats are substantial and the authors state them. The benchmark is small, at six tasks on a single platform; full task completion is still rare; grading is done by another language model; and the doubling-time estimate is sensitive to whether Gemini 4 Argon counts as a new record, since it beats Opus 5.5 by only 0.13 points. The authors call their extrapolation to teleoperator parity around mid-2027 very naive. Still, it is one of the first longitudinal measurements suggesting that general LLM progress is transferring to physical manipulation at a measurable, rapid rate.
- The LessWrong post frames the result as a capability trend line, with a naive extrapolation to teleoperator parity around mid-2027.
- TLDR's summary emphasized that models are held back by efficiency and precision rather than reasoning.