ElemedexA pocket encyclopedia of AI architectures

Glossary (TM) › Training and tuning

TM111

Base model vs assistant

Also: pretrained model, foundation model, instruct model, chat model

In Spanish: Modelo base vs asistente

The base model is the freshly pretrained network, which only continues text; the assistant is that same model tuned to respond as a helpful character in a conversation.

A base model is what comes out of pretraining: a network that has learned to predict the next token over a huge corpus, and nothing else. It is also called pretrained or a foundation model, a term popularized by Bommasani et al. (2021). The assistant (an instruct or chat model) is the same network after instruction tuning and preference optimization (Alammar & Grootendorst, 2024, pp. 355–356). The InstructGPT authors described the base GPT-3 models as having "poorly characterized behavior" (Ouyang et al., 2022, sec. 3.5).

The difference is not one of architecture but of conduct. The base model continues any document: a forum, a poem, a form. The assistant continues only one, the dialogue with a helpful character. For janus, instruction following is merely "an exploitable subset" of the patterns the model inherited from human language (janus, 2022) (see simulators). Zhou et al. (2023) took this to the extreme with the superficial alignment hypothesis: knowledge is acquired almost entirely in pretraining, and 1,000 well-chosen examples suffice to teach the format. Lu et al. (2026) concur: the direction that marks "being the Assistant" in assistants already exists in base models, where it promotes helpful human archetypes such as consultants and coaches (2026, sec. 3.2.2).

Something is lost. The pretrained GPT-4 was well calibrated (its confidence matched its probability of being right), and post-training made that calibration worse (OpenAI, 2023, sec. 5). Variety is lost too (mode collapse).

Shanahan (2024) downplays the distinction: the tuned model still models the distribution of words, only skewed toward what users and raters would approve (2024, p. 78). He even imagines that, with endless raters and geological time, a base model could be obtained entirely through RLHF; what counts is the product, not the process (2024, pp. 78–79). If base and assistant differ in degree rather than in kind, who is speaking when the assistant speaks: the character, the corpus, or the raters?

Sources

  • Alammar, J., & Grootendorst, M. (2024). Hands-on large language models: Language understanding and generation. O’Reilly Media. §
  • Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., . . . Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models (arXiv:2108.07258). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258 §
  • janus. (2022, September 2). Simulators. LessWrong. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vJFdjigzmcXMhNTsx/simulators §
  • Lu, C., Gallagher, J., Michala, J., Fish, K., & Lindsey, J. (2026). The Assistant Axis: Situating and stabilizing the default persona of language models (arXiv:2601.10387). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.10387 §
  • OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report (arXiv:2303.08774). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 §
  • Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 35, pp. 27730–27744). Curran Associates. https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-2011 §
  • Shanahan, M. (2024). Talking about large language models. Communications of the ACM, 67(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624724 §
  • Zhou, C., Liu, P., Xu, P., Iyer, S., Sun, J., Mao, Y., Ma, X., Efrat, A., Yu, P., Yu, L., Zhang, S., Ghosh, G., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Levy, O. (2023). LIMA: Less is more for alignment. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 36, pp. 55006–55021). Curran Associates. https://doi.org/10.52202/075280-2400 §