Brian Hsu

Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P. Goucher et al. · openai

GPT-4o is an autoregressive omni model that accepts as input any combination of text, audio, image, and video, and generates any combination of text, audio, and image outputs. It's trained end-to-end across text, vision, and audio, meaning all inputs and outputs are processed by the same neural network. GPT-4o can respond to audio inputs in as little as 232 milliseconds, with an average of 320 milliseconds, which is similar to human response time in conversation. It matches GPT-4 Turbo performance on text in English and code, with significant improvement on text in non-English languages, while also being much faster and 50\% cheaper in the API. GPT-4o is especially better at vision and audio understanding compared to existing models. In line with our commitment to building AI safely and consistent with our voluntary commitments to the White House, we are sharing the GPT-4o System Card, which includes our Preparedness Framework evaluations. In this System Card, we provide a detailed look at GPT-4o's capabilities, limitations, and safety evaluations across multiple categories, focusing on speech-to-speech while also evaluating text and image capabilities, and measures we've implemented to ensure the model is safe and aligned. We also include third-party assessments on dangerous capabilities, as well as discussion of potential societal impacts of GPT-4o's text and vision capabilities.

Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman et al. · berkeley, mila

This is the system card published alongside the OpenAI GPT-5 launch, August 2025. GPT-5 is a unified system with a smart and fast model that answers most questions, a deeper reasoning model for harder problems, and a real-time router that quickly decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit intent (for example, if you say 'think hard about this' in the prompt). The router is continuously trained on real signals, including when users switch models, preference rates for responses, and measured correctness, improving over time. Once usage limits are reached, a mini version of each model handles remaining queries. This system card focuses primarily on gpt-5-thinking and gpt-5-main, while evaluations for other models are available in the appendix. The GPT-5 system not only outperforms previous models on benchmarks and answers questions more quickly, but -- more importantly -- is more useful for real-world queries. We've made significant advances in reducing hallucinations, improving instruction following, and minimizing sycophancy, and have leveled up GPT-5's performance in three of ChatGPT's most common uses: writing, coding, and health. All of the GPT-5 models additionally feature safe-completions, our latest approach to safety training to prevent disallowed content. Similarly to ChatGPT agent, we have decided to treat gpt-5-thinking as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain under our Preparedness Framework, activating the associated safeguards. While we do not have definitive evidence that this model could meaningfully help a novice to create severe biological harm -- our defined threshold for High capability -- we have chosen to take a precautionary approach.

Brian Hsu, Rahul Mazumder, Preetam Nandy et al.

The impossibility theorem of fairness is a foundational result in the algorithmic fairness literature. It states that outside of special cases, one cannot exactly and simultaneously satisfy all three common and intuitive definitions of fairness - demographic parity, equalized odds, and predictive rate parity. This result has driven most works to focus on solutions for one or two of the metrics. Rather than follow suit, in this paper we present a framework that pushes the limits of the impossibility theorem in order to satisfy all three metrics to the best extent possible. We develop an integer-programming based approach that can yield a certifiably optimal post-processing method for simultaneously satisfying multiple fairness criteria under small violations. We show experiments demonstrating that our post-processor can improve fairness across the different definitions simultaneously with minimal model performance reduction. We also discuss applications of our framework for model selection and fairness explainability, thereby attempting to answer the question: who's the fairest of them all?

Brian Hsu, Xiaotong Chen, Ying Han et al.

As AI-based decision systems proliferate, their successful operationalization requires balancing multiple desiderata: predictive performance, disparity across groups, safeguarding sensitive group attributes (e.g., race), and engineering cost. We present a holistic framework for evaluating and contextualizing fairness interventions with respect to the above desiderata. The two key points of practical consideration are \emph{where} (pre-, in-, post-processing) and \emph{how} (in what way the sensitive group data is used) the intervention is introduced. We demonstrate our framework with a case study on predictive parity. In it, we first propose a novel method for achieving predictive parity fairness without using group data at inference time via distibutionally robust optimization. Then, we showcase the effectiveness of these methods in a benchmarking study of close to 400 variations across two major model types (XGBoost vs. Neural Net), ten datasets, and over twenty unique methodologies. Methodological insights derived from our empirical study inform the practical design of ML workflow with fairness as a central concern. We find predictive parity is difficult to achieve without using group data, and despite requiring group data during model training (but not inference), distributionally robust methods we develop provide significant Pareto improvement. Moreover, a plain XGBoost model often Pareto-dominates neural networks with fairness interventions, highlighting the importance of model inductive bias.

Brian Hsu, Priyanka V Setty, Rory M Butler et al.

Automating experimental protocol design and execution remains as a fundamental bottleneck in realizing self-driving laboratories. We introduce PRISM (Protocol Refinement through Intelligent Simulation Modeling), a framework that automates the design, validation, and execution of experimental protocols on a laboratory platform composed of off-the-shelf robotic instruments. PRISM uses a set of language-model-based agents that work together to generate and refine experimental steps. The process begins with automatically gathering relevant procedures from web-based sources describing experimental workflows. These are converted into structured experimental steps (e.g., liquid handling steps, deck layout and other related operations) through a planning, critique, and validation loop. The finalized steps are translated into the Argonne MADSci protocol format, which provides a unified interface for coordinating multiple robotic instruments (Opentrons OT-2 liquid handler, PF400 arm, Azenta plate sealer and peeler) without requiring human intervention between steps. To evaluate protocol-generation performance, we benchmarked both single reasoning models and multi-agent workflow across constrained and open-ended prompting paradigms. The resulting protocols were validated in a digital-twin environment built in NVIDIA Omniverse to detect physical or sequencing errors before execution. Using Luna qPCR amplification and Cell Painting as case studies, we demonstrate PRISM as a practical end-to-end workflow that bridges language-based protocol generation, simulation-based validation, and automated robotic execution.

Joaquin Quiñonero-Candela, Yuwen Wu, Brian Hsu et al.

Operationalizing AI fairness at LinkedIn's scale is challenging not only because there are multiple mutually incompatible definitions of fairness but also because determining what is fair depends on the specifics and context of the product where AI is deployed. Moreover, AI practitioners need clarity on what fairness expectations need to be addressed at the AI level. In this paper, we present the evolving AI fairness framework used at LinkedIn to address these three challenges. The framework disentangles AI fairness by separating out equal treatment and equitable product expectations. Rather than imposing a trade-off between these two commonly opposing interpretations of fairness, the framework provides clear guidelines for operationalizing equal AI treatment complemented with a product equity strategy. This paper focuses on the equal AI treatment component of LinkedIn's AI fairness framework, shares the principles that support it, and illustrates their application through a case study. We hope this paper will encourage other big tech companies to join us in sharing their approach to operationalizing AI fairness at scale, so that together we can keep advancing this constantly evolving field.