プロジェクトフェッチ

red.anthropic.com Project Fetch: Can Claude train a robot dog?

How could frontier AI models like Claude reach beyond computers and affect the physical world? One path is through robots. We ran an experiment to see how much Claude helped Anthropic staff perform complex tasks with a robot dog.

We randomly divided eight Anthropic researchers (none of whom were robotics experts) into two teams—one with Claude access, one without—and asked them to program quadruped robots to fetch beach balls.

Team Claude accomplished more tasks and completed them faster on average—indeed, Team Claude succeeded in about half the time it took Team Claude-less. Only Team Claude made substantial progress toward the final goal: programming the robot to fully autonomously retrieve the ball.

Access to AI also affected team morale and dynamics. Team Claude-less expressed more negative emotion and confusion, but also asked one another more questions. Team Claude’s members largely worked in partnership with the AI.

This experiment demonstrated substantial AI uplift in robotics—bridging digital and physical worlds. As models improve, their ability to affect the physical world by interacting with previously-unknown hardware could advance rapidly.

Gathered around a table in a warehouse, looking at computer screens with code that refused to work, with no access to their trusted AI assistant Claude, our volunteer researchers did not expect to be attacked by a four-legged robot.

Yet as the mechanical whirring and rubberized footfalls grew louder, the humans startled. They had been trying, without success, to establish a connection between their computers and a robotic quadruped—a “robodog.” Meanwhile, the competing team on the other side of the room had long since done so and were now controlling their robot with a program largely written by Claude. But in an all-too-human error of arithmetic, Team Claude had instructed their robodog to move forward at a speed of one meter per second for five seconds—failing to realize that less than five meters away was the table with the other team.

The robot did as it was instructed, careening toward the hapless coders. The event’s organizer managed to grab hold of the robot and power it off before any damage was done to robots, tables, or human limbs. The morale of the inadvertently targeted team, however, did not escape unscathed.

At this point, you might be asking…

A common question about the impact of AI is how good it will be at interacting with the physical world. Even as we enter the era of AI agents—which take actions instead of just providing information—these actions are largely digital, such as writing code and manipulating software. We’ve previously explored how AI can bridge the digital-physical divide in a limited way with Project Vend, where we had Claude run a small shop in Anthropic’s office.

In that experiment, AI’s interaction with the real world was mediated by human labor. In this robodog experiment, we took a natural next step and used robots instead of people to tackle a different challenge.

One way of understanding and tracking the capabilities of AI models is to run an “uplift” study. These experiments randomly divide participants into two groups—one with access to AI and one without—and measure the difference in task performance between them (we’ve used this methodology extensively in our work on AI and biological risk). The difference between the groups is the “uplift”—the advantage (if any) provided by AI. Measuring uplift tells us about the present ability of AI to augment human performance. It’s also suggestive of the future domains in which AI will be able to successfully perform tasks on its own.

To run our experiment, we recruited eight Anthropic researchers and engineers, none of whom had extensive prior experience with robots.[1] We randomly selected four to be on “Team Claude” and four to be on “Team Claude-less.” Then, we asked each team to operate a quadruped robodog in three increasingly difficult phases. In all phases, the core task they were being evaluated against was simple: get the robodog to fetch a beach ball.

We do not expect robotic fetch to prove so economically valuable that it shows up as a task on a future version of our Anthropic Economic Index. So why are we doing this?

First, it builds on our previous research. One of the evaluations we use to assess the ability of Claude to contribute to AI R&D is a test of its ability to train a machine learning model that could be used to control a quadruped robot. We’ve previously evaluated the resulting algorithm using simulations, which have shown that Claude is not yet at the point where it can handle this task truly autonomously.[2] This meant that this task was well suited to a trial that combined AI with human help. We could also be confident our experiment would be useful to repeat in the future: there is still a lot of room for models to improve on robotics.

Another reason is practical. It’s