OpenAssistant Conversations (OASST)
DatasetFree161K human-written messages in 35 languages with quality ratings.
Capabilities8 decomposed
multi-turn conversation tree extraction with branching path support
Medium confidenceExtracts complete conversation trees from 66,497 human-authored dialogues where each message can have multiple child responses, creating a directed acyclic graph (DAG) structure. The dataset preserves branching paths where volunteers provided alternative continuations at decision points, enabling training on diverse response distributions for the same context. This tree structure is serializable to JSON with parent-child message IDs, allowing downstream systems to reconstruct full conversation histories or sample specific branches for preference learning.
Preserves full conversation DAG with multiple child branches per message, unlike flat conversation datasets (e.g., ShareGPT) that linearize to single paths. Enables direct preference learning from sibling responses without synthetic pairing.
Larger human-written branching dataset than alternatives like HH-RLHF (which uses synthetic preference pairs), allowing reward models to learn from natural human divergence rather than algorithmic ranking.
human quality rating aggregation with inter-annotator agreement metrics
Medium confidenceEach message includes quality ratings from multiple human annotators (typically 3-5 raters per message) on dimensions like helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. The dataset provides aggregated scores (mean, median, or consensus) plus raw per-annotator ratings, enabling calculation of inter-rater reliability (Krippendorff's alpha, Fleiss' kappa) and identification of ambiguous examples. This multi-rater approach reduces individual bias and allows filtering by agreement threshold to create high-confidence training subsets.
Provides raw per-annotator ratings alongside aggregates, enabling downstream systems to compute custom agreement metrics and weight examples by confidence rather than using fixed aggregation. Most datasets only expose final scores.
Richer annotation metadata than single-rater datasets (e.g., Alpaca) or datasets with binary labels, allowing nuanced quality-based filtering and confidence-weighted training.
toxicity and safety annotation with multi-dimensional labels
Medium confidenceMessages are annotated with toxicity scores and categorical safety labels (e.g., sexual content, violence, illegal activity, misinformation) applied by human annotators. The dataset exposes both binary flags (toxic/non-toxic) and continuous toxicity scores, plus detailed category breakdowns. This enables training safety classifiers, filtering harmful content, and analyzing the distribution of safety issues across conversation types and languages.
Multi-dimensional safety annotations (toxicity score + categorical labels) across 35 languages, rather than single binary toxic/non-toxic flags. Enables language-specific and category-specific safety filtering.
More comprehensive safety metadata than generic instruction datasets (e.g., Alpaca), and covers low-resource languages beyond English-centric datasets like HH-RLHF.
multilingual conversation dataset with 35 language support and cross-lingual sampling
Medium confidenceContains 161,443 messages across 35 languages with uneven distribution (English-dominant but includes low-resource languages like Swahili, Vietnamese, Polish). The dataset structure allows filtering by language code and sampling balanced subsets across languages. This enables training multilingual models, analyzing language-specific conversation patterns, and studying how human preferences vary across linguistic and cultural contexts.
Covers 35 languages including low-resource ones (Swahili, Vietnamese, Polish) with human-written conversations, not machine-translated. Enables genuine cross-lingual preference learning rather than synthetic translation.
Broader language coverage than English-centric datasets (e.g., ShareGPT, HH-RLHF), though with language imbalance requiring careful sampling. Larger low-resource language component than most instruction datasets.
preference pair generation for rlhf training via sibling response comparison
Medium confidenceAutomatically generates preference training pairs by comparing sibling responses (multiple continuations of the same prompt) using aggregated human quality ratings. For each prompt with N child responses, the system creates preference triplets (prompt, higher-rated_response, lower-rated_response) by ranking children by quality score. This avoids synthetic preference generation and grounds preference learning in actual human judgments, enabling direct training of reward models and DPO-style algorithms.
Derives preferences from natural conversation branching and human ratings rather than synthetic comparison or LLM-based ranking. Grounds preference learning in actual human judgments without additional annotation.
More authentic preference signal than synthetic pairs (e.g., GPT-4 ranking) or single-response datasets. Enables preference learning at scale without expensive pairwise human annotation.
instruction-response pair extraction for supervised fine-tuning
Medium confidenceFlattens conversation trees into instruction-response pairs by treating each user message as an instruction and the following assistant message as the response. Handles multi-turn context by optionally including conversation history or using only the immediate prompt-response pair. This enables straightforward supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of language models without requiring preference learning infrastructure, suitable for baseline model training or quick prototyping.
Preserves conversation tree structure while enabling flat pair extraction, allowing users to choose between SFT (flat pairs) and preference learning (branching) without data duplication.
More flexible than single-format datasets — supports both SFT and preference learning from the same source, vs datasets optimized for only one approach.
conversation metadata and filtering by task type and domain
Medium confidenceEach conversation includes metadata tags or inferred categories (e.g., creative writing, coding, Q&A, general knowledge) enabling domain-specific filtering and analysis. While not explicitly documented as structured tags in the original dataset, the message content and conversation structure allow downstream systems to classify conversations by type. This enables creating domain-specific training subsets, analyzing model performance across task types, and studying how human preferences vary by domain.
Conversation diversity (creative writing, coding, Q&A, general knowledge) within a single dataset enables domain-specific analysis and filtering, though without explicit labels requiring custom classification.
Broader task coverage than single-domain datasets (e.g., code-specific or creative writing-specific), allowing multi-domain model training or domain-specific subset creation.
large-scale human-written dataset with volunteer annotation pipeline
Medium confidence161,443 messages collected from 13,000+ volunteer annotators through a crowdsourced platform (Open Assistant project), not generated by LLMs or synthetic methods. The annotation pipeline includes message creation, quality rating, toxicity labeling, and ranking by multiple independent raters. This human-centric approach ensures authentic conversational patterns, diverse writing styles, and genuine human preferences, though with inherent quality variance across annotators.
Largest human-written (not LLM-generated) instruction dataset at scale, created by 13,000+ volunteers rather than single-model generation or synthetic methods. Preserves natural human diversity in writing and preferences.
More authentic and diverse than LLM-generated datasets (e.g., Alpaca, ShareGPT based on ChatGPT) or synthetic preference pairs. Larger human-written component than most alternatives, though with quality variance requiring filtering.
Capabilities are decomposed by AI analysis. Each maps to specific user intents and improves with match feedback.
Related Artifactssharing capabilities
Artifacts that share capabilities with OpenAssistant Conversations (OASST), ranked by overlap. Discovered automatically through the match graph.
RealToxicityPrompts
100K prompts for evaluating toxic text generation.
Scale AI
Enterprise AI data labeling with managed annotation workforce.
WildChat
1M+ real user-AI conversations with demographic metadata.
Coval
Streamline AI testing with advanced simulations and custom...
Collabmem – a memory system for long-term collaboration with AI
Hello HN! I built collabmem, a simple memory system for long-term collaboration between humans and AI assistants. And it's easy to install, just ask Claude Code: Install the long-term collaboration memory system by cloning https://github.com/visionscaper/collabmem to a te
ToxiGen
Microsoft's dataset for implicit toxicity detection.
Best For
- ✓RLHF researchers building preference datasets from human feedback
- ✓Teams training dialogue models that need diverse response alternatives
- ✓Researchers studying human conversation branching patterns and decision points
- ✓Teams training reward models and wanting to weight examples by annotation confidence
- ✓Researchers studying annotation disagreement patterns in conversational AI
- ✓Practitioners building quality-filtered subsets for supervised fine-tuning
- ✓Teams building safety-aligned language models and needing labeled toxic examples
- ✓Researchers studying toxicity patterns in multilingual conversational data
Known Limitations
- ⚠Tree structure requires custom parsing logic — no built-in graph database export, must reconstruct from message parent IDs
- ⚠Branching depth varies significantly (some trees 1-2 turns, others 15+ turns), requiring careful sampling strategies to avoid bias toward shallow conversations
- ⚠No explicit conversation intent labels — must infer task type (Q&A, creative writing, coding) from message content alone
- ⚠Rater agreement varies by message type — coding/technical questions have higher agreement than subjective creative writing
- ⚠No rater demographic or expertise metadata — cannot analyze if disagreement correlates with rater background
- ⚠Aggregation method (mean vs median vs consensus) not fully specified in documentation, requiring empirical validation
Requirements
Input / Output
UnfragileRank
UnfragileRank is computed from adoption signals, documentation quality, ecosystem connectivity, match graph feedback, and freshness. No artifact can pay for a higher rank.
About
Human-generated conversational dataset created by over 13,000 volunteers through the Open Assistant project. Contains 161,443 messages across 66,497 conversation trees in 35 languages. Each message has human quality ratings, labels, and toxicity annotations. Multi-turn conversations with branching paths allow preference learning. The largest human-written (not LLM-generated) instruction dataset available. Used to train OpenAssistant models and widely adopted for RLHF research.
Categories
Alternatives to OpenAssistant Conversations (OASST)
Open-source image generation — SD3, SDXL, massive ecosystem of LoRAs, ControlNets, runs locally.
Compare →Are you the builder of OpenAssistant Conversations (OASST)?
Claim this artifact to get a verified badge, access match analytics, see which intents users search for, and manage your listing.
Get the weekly brief
New tools, rising stars, and what's actually worth your time. No spam.
Data Sources
Looking for something else?
Search →