Strategy question
Several teams want the safety measurement platform expanded at once, for example, to a new model, a high-scale product surface, and a high-severity but low-volume abuse vector. How would you prioritize what to instrument first, what level of measurement rigor each gets, and what you would explicitly defer?
- OpenAI
- Strategy
- Hard
Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.
Start a mock interview on this question · Mock interview from a job description
What this question tests
Tests prioritization under simultaneous competing demands, matching measurement rigor to risk level rather than applying one uniform standard everywhere.
How to approach it
- Assess each request by potential harm severity and scale: a new model, broad exposure; a high scale surface, broad exposure; a high severity low volume vector, narrow but severe exposure.
- Prioritize instrumenting the high severity, low volume abuse vector first if its potential harm per incident is greatest, even though it affects fewer users.
- Apply full measurement rigor to the new model and high scale surface given their broad exposure, but scope the initial coverage to the most likely failure modes rather than everything at once.
- Give the high severity vector lighter weight infrastructure but strict human review, since building full automated measurement for a rare event may not be worth the cost yet.
- Explicitly defer lower priority instrumentation, documenting the decision and revisiting it on a set schedule rather than leaving it silently unaddressed.
- Communicate the prioritization and its rationale to all three requesting teams so none are left assuming they are being ignored without reason.
What a strong answer includes
- Matches measurement rigor to risk profile rather than treating all three requests identically, which is the central judgment this question tests.
- Prioritizes the high severity low volume vector by potential harm, not by volume, showing correct risk weighting rather than a purely usage driven ranking.
- Documents and communicates what is explicitly deferred, rather than letting deprioritized work silently stall without any stakeholder visibility.
Common mistakes
- Prioritizing purely by user volume, which would systematically underweight rare but severe harm vectors.
- Trying to fully instrument all three requests at once, spreading effort so thin that none gets adequate rigor.
Likely follow-up questions
- How would you decide the minimum viable rigor for the high severity, low volume vector?
- What would move a deferred instrumentation request back up the priority list?
More strategy questions
- If you were a product manager at ChatGPT and saw a rise in thumbs down on responses, how would you identify and address the root cause?OpenAI · Strategy · Hard
- OpenAI wants to make AI tools more accessible to non-technical users. Which product or feature would you prioritize first, and why?OpenAI · Strategy · Hard
- How would you monetize ChatGPT?OpenAI · Strategy · Hard
- How would you improve developer adoption of AgentKit against competitors like LangChain?OpenAI · Strategy · Hard
- How would you monetize a new 'study mode' feature for students in ChatGPT?OpenAI · Strategy · Medium
- Sora's standalone app was discontinued in 2026. How would you decide whether to relaunch video generation as a standalone product vs. a ChatGPT feature?OpenAI · Strategy · Hard
More questions from OpenAI
Learn the skill behind it
Chapters of the AI PM course that teach what this question tests.
- Chapter 4: Discovery and strategy for AI products
- Chapter 9: Prove it paid off: outcomes, economics, and pricing
- Chapter 14: Get the job: the AI PM interview loop