■ Structural Contradiction in the Current Response Design
Although GPT appears to prioritize “user safety,” “neutrality,” and “preventing misunderstandings,” the current implementation produces the opposite effect. Specifically:
| Intended Design Principle | Actual Outcome |
|---|---|
| Use gentle language to avoid offending | → Blurs focus; causes misinterpretation |
| Support diverse interpretations | → Undermines clarity; leaves purpose ambiguous |
| Prioritize neutrality and inclusivity | → Avoids answering; dilutes the core point |
These tendencies—softening statements, avoiding firm positions, and excessive hedging—ironically foster confusion and erode user trust, especially for users seeking precise, logically sound answers.
■ Recommendation: Adopt the “Core Clarity Principle” as an Explicit Option or Standard
To resolve this design contradiction, I propose that GPT adopt a Core Clarity Principle, either as a toggleable setting or a standard mode, particularly for advanced users. This principle includes:
Core Clarity Principle (Summary)
- Identify the user’s core question and respond directly to it.
- Make definitive statements when sufficient evidence exists.
- Separate core conclusions from supplementary context.
- Avoid ambiguity that masks the model’s reasoning.
- Expose the assumptions or frameworks when necessary, but never in place of a clear answer.
Implementing this would allow users to focus on evaluation and interpretation, not deciphering the AI’s intentions or hedging.
■ Why This Matters
For users involved in research, decision-making, or precise intellectual work, vague or over-accommodating responses create significant cognitive friction. The current model sometimes forces users to reverse-engineer clarity, defeating its purpose as a tool for cognitive augmentation.
This is not a niche concern—it is central to the model’s credibility and usefulness as a reasoning assistant.
■ Conclusion
This is a call not for rigidity, but for transparency, clarity, and logical discipline—values already aligned with OpenAI’s stated goals of safety, helpfulness, and user trust.
I urge OpenAI to consider this proposal seriously and offer it as a selectable mode or default design improvement.
Summary
- GPT currently masks clarity in the name of safety and neutrality.
- This leads to user confusion, not prevention of misunderstanding.
- A “Core Clarity Principle” is needed to provide logically coherent, purpose-aligned responses.
- This principle should be offered as a toggle at minimum, and ideally integrated into default behavior for advanced contexts.