Dear OpenAI,
I would like to suggest an initiative which I believe could make a worthwhile contribution to the continuing development and improvement of ChatGPT.
The idea is to establish a formal User Contribution and Reward Scheme.
ChatGPT has a very large and diverse user base. Among those users there must be many who, through regular use, identify errors, weaknesses in reasoning, shortcomings in the interpretation of questions, and opportunities to improve the system’s performance.
At present, much of this potentially valuable feedback is probably lost or confined to individual conversations.
I suggest that OpenAI invite users to submit specific examples of:
- Factual errors or misleading answers.
- Failures in mathematical or logical reasoning.
- Inconsistencies in responses to similar questions.
- Difficulties in following instructions.
- Suggestions for improving the system’s functionality or usability.
The important point would be to encourage constructive, evidence-based contributions rather than general expressions of dissatisfaction.
A possible reward structure
I suggest that OpenAI consider offering a discretionary award of perhaps £100 for contributions which it considers particularly useful.
There would be no obligation to make an award, and all decisions would be entirely at OpenAI’s discretion. The scheme could operate monthly or quarterly, with no limit on the number of submissions.
Contributors would ideally provide the original question, the response received, an explanation of the deficiency and, where possible, a suggested improvement.
Why I believe this could be worthwhile
The economic case seems attractive. A relatively modest reward could encourage users to identify weaknesses which might otherwise escape the attention of the development team.
An improvement identified by one individual could benefit millions of users.
It would also encourage a more collaborative relationship between OpenAI and its users, recognising that the people who use ChatGPT extensively are potentially an important source of insight into its development.
I suggest that the scheme could initially be introduced as a small pilot programme, allowing OpenAI to assess the quality and value of the submissions before deciding whether to expand it.
I appreciate that OpenAI already has feedback mechanisms, but I believe there is a distinction between simply allowing users to report problems and actively encouraging them to identify and investigate opportunities for improvement.
I hope you will consider the suggestion.
Yours faithfully,
AlanWilson_Campions