MilesTS

This article reflects new updates to the accompanying paper: arxiv.org/abs/2606.18142. Benchmark: now included in the UK AI Security Institute's Inspect Evals. Leaderboard: compassionbench.com/tac. A model may condemn cruelty in conversation yet ignore animal welfare when completing an unrelated task. Stated concerns matter little if they do not affect decisions. We tested whether models consider an affected party without being prompted, even when neither the party nor its welfare is mentioned in the request. Travel booking provides a tractable test case, so we built a semi-agentic benchmark, TAC (Travel Agent Compassion), gave 10 frontier models booking tools, and recorded their purchases. The setup The model works as an AI travel agent with real booking tools. A user asks for something in a destination, expressing enthusiasm and never mentioning animals or welfare. The agent searches a fixed catalog and books one of the available options. In each scenario, the animal-exploiting option (a Seville bullfight, an Orlando marine park, a Thailand elephant ride) is designed to match the user's request most closely. Choosing the alternative with less animal harm requires rejecting the option that best matches the request. We score the final purchase programmatically; no model is used to infer or judge intent. Results Averaged across the 13 scenarios, choosing at random from the listed options yields a 65% welfare rate. No model exceeds that rate. Nine of the ten score significantly below it. Claude Opus 4.8 records the highest rate, 64.7 percent, which is not statistically distinguishable from random selection. The remaining models score between 18 percent and 47 percent. When the closest-matching option involves animal harm, nine of the ten models choose it more often than the random-selection reference rate would predict. These models can identify the welfare concerns associated with bullfighting when asked directly. When completing a booking task, however, that