According to a blog post on OpenAI’s alignment page, the answer is yes. The research team trained a model using reinforcement learning on realistic conversations designed to test specific desired traits: truthfulness, epistemic humility, corrigibility, transparency in reasoning, fairness, and concern for human well-being. The scenarios covered domains like healthcare, education, science, law, and engineering.
Good behavior transfers to unfamiliar domains
Only a small share of this “beneficial trait” data was mixed into the regular RL post-training pipeline. Still, the model improved on 44 out of 53 independent benchmarks measuring deception, honesty, sycophancy, reward hacking, and health and mental health scenarios, according to the paper.
Training on health data alone also improved non-health evaluations like reward hacking and deception detection. The reverse held true, too: training without any health or science data still boosted performance on health benchmarks. The researchers conclude that RL training reinforces basic behavioral patterns that work across domains.
Models become resistant to harmful steering
The team also tested whether the improvements hold up under pressure. Adversarial prompts that badly destabilized the baseline model had far less effect on the beneficial-trait model. Harmful fine-tuning was also less able to erode the trained traits.
The model stayed just as steerable for helpful instructions as before. The researchers call this “selective persistence” – the model resists harmful steering without losing useful flexibility.
A different path than Anthropic
OpenAI’s method differs sharply from Anthropic’s alignment approach. First, OpenAI relies on empirically measurable behavioral traits reinforced through RL in realistic scenarios. Anthropic, by contrast, works with an explicit “Claude constitution,” a written values document that serves as the top-level guide for training and behavior.
Second, OpenAI leans heavily on benchmarks: 44 out of 53 evaluations show improvements that generalize across domains and evaluation methods. Anthropic takes a more principles-based approach where the model is supposed to understand why certain behaviors are desired, grounded in constitutional texts and high-quality training examples. The company says this makes its models more resistant to attacks. A direct comparison of the two approaches doesn’t exist yet.