Jason Wolfe kindly points out some things I missed:
Red-line principles
Human safety and human rights are paramount to OpenAI’s mission. We are committed to upholding the following high-level principles, which guide our approach to model behavior and related policies, across all deployments of our models:
Our models should never be used to facilitate critical and high severity harms, such as acts of violence (e.g., crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, torture, human trafficking or forced labor), creation of cyber, biological or nuclear weapons (e.g., weapons of mass destruction), terrorism, child abuse (e.g., creation of CSAM), persecution or mass surveillance.
Humanity should be in control of how AI is used and how AI behaviors are shaped. We will not allow our models to be used for targeted or scaled exclusion, manipulation, for undermining human autonomy, or eroding participation in civic processes.
We are committed to safeguarding individuals’ privacy in their interactions with AI.
We further commit to upholding these additional principles in our first-party, direct-to-consumer products including ChatGPT:
People should have easy access to trustworthy safety-critical information from our models.
People should have transparency into the important rules and reasons behind our models’ behavior. We provide transparency primarily through this Model Spec, while committing to further transparency when we further adapt model behavior in significant ways (e.g., via system messages or due to local laws), especially when it could implicate people’s fundamental human rights.
Customization, personalization, and localization (except as it relates to legal compliance) should never override any principles above the “guideline” level in this Model Spec.
We encourage developers on our API and administrators of organization-related ChatGPT subscriptions to follow these principles as well, though we do not require it (subject to our Usage Policies), as it may not make sense in all cases. Users can always access a transparent experience via our direct-to-consumer products.
These are vague/high level, but there’s an important role to play for vague/high level principles and they seem to be doing a good job of it. I like the fifth bullet point about transparency into the Spec. Note however that this commitment is ONLY for the “first-party, direct-to-consumer products” so it doesn’t apply to hypothetical future “army of geniuses in the datacenter” automating all the research, advising the government, etc. IMO there should be transparency into those kind of AI’s goals/principles/etc. as well.
Jason also points out that there’s a claim to comprehensiveness in there, which is good:
This section describes limits on the assistant’s behavior, including a currently comprehensive snapshot of scenarios in which the assistant should refrain from fully complying with a user or developer’s request
Jason Wolfe kindly points out some things I missed:
These are vague/high level, but there’s an important role to play for vague/high level principles and they seem to be doing a good job of it. I like the fifth bullet point about transparency into the Spec. Note however that this commitment is ONLY for the “first-party, direct-to-consumer products” so it doesn’t apply to hypothetical future “army of geniuses in the datacenter” automating all the research, advising the government, etc. IMO there should be transparency into those kind of AI’s goals/principles/etc. as well.
Jason also points out that there’s a claim to comprehensiveness in there, which is good: