Because it's not a user manual? The idea of a model card originated in 2018 (see https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993) as a summary of important facts about a model. At the time, this was typically an image classifier or tabular ML model. Model cards became an important concept in AI governance, and they started expanding once models started getting more capable. The point of a model/system card is to document where the model came from and the evaluations that have been run, make a case that the model will be safe and reliable in its intended applications, and warn about any potential dangers from misuse. It's not an explanation of how to use the model. OpenAI also releases system cards; here's GPT-5.5's: https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-5-5/safety
Model Cards for Model Reporting
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar
Show all 9 authors
Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Timnit Gebru
2018 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 10
- Readers
- 9
- Months
- 9
From the abstract
Trained machine learning models are increasingly used to perform high-impact tasks in areas such as law enforcement, medicine, education, and employment. In order to clarify the intended use cases of machine learning models and minimize their usage in contexts for which they are not well suited, we recommend that released models be accompanied by documentation detailing their performance characteristics. In this paper, we propose a framework that we call model cards, to encourage such transparent model reporting. Model cards are short documents accompanying trained machine learning models that provide benchmarked evaluation in a variety of conditions, such as across different cultural, demographic, or phenotypic groups (e.g., race, geographic location, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type) and intersectional groups (e.g., age and race, or sex and Fitzpatrick skin type) that are relevant to the intended application domains. Model cards also disclose the context in which models are intended to be used, details of the performance evaluation procedures, and other relevant information. While we focus primarily on human-centered machine learning models in the application fields of computer vision and natural language processing, this framework can be used to document any trained machine learning model. To solidify the concept, we provide cards for two supervised models: One trained to detect smiling faces in images, and one trained to detect toxic comments in text. We propose model cards as a step towards the responsible democratization of machine learning and related AI technology, increasing transparency into how well AI technology works. We hope this work encourages those releasing trained machine learning models to accompany model releases with similar detailed evaluation numbers and other relevant documentation.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
10 selected excerpts · 10 total mentions
For those wondering where the “card” terminology originated: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03993 Maybe at 39 pages we should start looking for a different term…
To my knowledge, this is the origin of model cards: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993 However, often the things we get from companies do not look very much like what was described in this paper. So it's fair to question if they're even the same thing.
Had to track through five links to find out what a "system card" is. It's an instance of a "model card", some broad headings to be filled in.[1] • Model Details. • Intended Use. • Factors. Factors could include demographic or phenotypic groups, environmental conditions, technical attributes, or others • Metrics. • Evaluation Data. • Training Data • Quantitative Analyses • Caveats and Recommendations Meta's PR describes a "system card", but doesn't provide one.[2] It doesn't, interestingly, seem to include the initial built-in prompts used as constraints. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03993 [2] https://ai.meta.com/blog/system-cards-a-new-resource-for-und...
Please at least read the paper before appealing to authority. It is a well designed set of experiments that clearly demonstrates that the notion of a "phase change" (rapid shift in capabilities) as a popularized by many people claiming emergence is actually a gradual improvement with more data. But if you do want to appeal to Lecun as an authority, then maybe you'll accept that these (re)tweets that clearly indicate he finds the insights from the paper to be valid: https://nitter.1d4.us/ylecun/status/1736479356917063847 https://nitter.1d4.us/rao2z/status/1736464000836309259 (retweeted) As for Timnit, I think you have your timeline confused. Model cards are what put her on…
Read the full comment
the map for most general NLP researchers, which predates her difficulties at Google. 2018: Model cards paper was put on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993 2019: Major ML organizations start using model cards https://github.com/openai/gpt-2/blob/master/model_card.md 2020: Model cards become fairly standard https://blog.research.google/2020/07/introducing-model-card-... Dec 2020: Timnit is let go from the ethics team at Google https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55187611 EDIT:formatting
This is a nice concise format to display model cards (https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993). I like the style and the "standard". But, I do agree with other commenters that the 'nutrition' term is probably inappropriate. We get the style from the card - you don't need to carry the analogy any further.
If this becomes something like huggingface for Computer Vision - awesome. For now, it's a shame model descriptions seem to often be lifted straight from README. Having a more standardized description, something like model cards [1] (CV example [2]) would be hugely beneficial IMO. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03993.pdf [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f39lSzU5Oq-j_OXgS67KfN5wNso...
> In fact, this is exactly what the authors did. In fact, they did so after Timnit brought up her objection, and did so by taking advantage of Timnit's research (the model card they added is a direct result of research Timnit was involved with: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993).
The discussion mentioned the Tutorial on Fairness Accountability Transparency and Ethics in Computer Vision at CVPR 2020. The tutorial was recorded in three parts. The third part[1] includes solutions. These are either direct quotes or paraphrases of the bullet points contained therein. 1. Disaggregated Evaluations[2][3], Counterfactual Testing[4], Interpretability Methods[5] 2. Recognize [l]imitations(sic) of technical approaches (this discussion) 3. Model documentation frameworks[2] 4. Standardized framework for transparent dataset documentation [6] 5. Positionality awareness [7] 6. Actively follow the perspectives of people in marginalized groups 7. Make intentional…
Read the full comment
design choices to privilege the perspectives of marginalized stakeholders who are at most risk of being harmed by the technology we develop 8. Value interdisciplinary and 'non-technical' work Note: These are some of the sources given as examples. Some are omitted for the sake of time. Also note: Just because there are points doesn't obligate you to agree with them [1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPpwa7W93I&t=1499s [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03993.pdf [3] http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a... [4] https://research.google/pubs/pub46743/ [5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.11443.pdf [6] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.09010.pdf [7] https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3351095.3375666
The "model card" concept actually comes from a pre-LLM Google paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03993), where the example cards did fit on a single page. The concept quickly became a standard component of AI governance frameworks, and Hugging Face adopted it as a reasonable standard format for a model README. As LLMs emerged and became more capable at broader ranges of tasks, model cards expanded to the sizes we see today.
Keep following the thread.
More in Machine learningMore from the same topics.
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder +28
Recent work has demonstrated substantial gains on many NLP tasks and benchmarks by pre-training on a large corpus of text followed by fine-tuning on a specific task.
Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization
Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt +2
Despite their massive size, successful deep artificial neural networks can exhibit a remarkably small difference between training and test performance.
End to End Learning for Self-Driving Cars
Mariusz Bojarski, Davide Del Testa, Daniel Dworakowski +10
We trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) to map raw pixels from a single front-facing camera directly to steering commands.
Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Law
David Manheim, Scott Garrabrant
There are several distinct failure modes for overoptimization of systems on the basis of metrics.