📖 we just shared the model spec, i.e. a “spec” for openai’s models. it’s a work in progress that we’re sharing for early feedback. it also features profanity & cats, flat earth theory, and why the model says “sorry, i can’t help with that”. from a product perspective, i’m personally excited about this concept of a model spec for three reasons: 1. there’ll be more clarity on whether something is a policy or rlhf bug if a model says or does something that you disagree with, was that intended by openai or an rlhf bug? should you yell at @sama or researchers?? jk please don’t yell at researchers 2. principles are easier to debate and get feedback on, vs. hyper-specific screenshots or abstract feel-good statements it’s easy for most people to agree on “models should be [adjective]”, but the more important questions lie deeper in thorny scenarios: how should the model engage with someone who claims that the earth is flat? the model spec introduces language we can use to debate model behavior questions: objectives, rules, defaults, with difficult cases we’ve encountered through real-world use. i’m hoping that these new concepts will enable more nuanced and important discussions. 3. model spec feedback will help us steer our efforts in steerability an explicit non-goal for the model spec is to reach consensus on a one-size-fits-all model. that will never happen. we want to give users and developers as much control as possible while staying within hard boundaries that people understand. hearing feedback on where & how everyone wants to steer the model is helpful in (a) designing a more rigorous survey process and (b) informing the research and product roadmap. a lot of people worked on this — both the model spec and all the thinking that led up to it — and they’re all genuinely excited to hear from you on the hardest questions. so please don’t be shy and tell us your thoughts!