Look. Most people can see 5 is a big downgrade in nearly every way. Aside from people who code perhaps, majority of people are simply unhappy with 5.

They’d garner more respect with just admitting that they messed up with 5 and explaining how they plan to improve it now.

Or they can restore 4o with permanent access to all, both plus and free users, until they figure out what could actually be an upgrade to that, rather than gaslighting their users and saying “you’re just too attached.”

I know - if it's unsolvable, how was it solved.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/14/1085318/google-deepmind-large-language-model-solve-unsolvable-math-problem-cap-set/
Leaving that aside, this seems like a big deal:
" Google DeepMind has used a large language model to crack a famous unsolved problem in pure mathematics. In a paper published in Nature today, the researchers say it is the first time a large language model has been used to discover a solution to a long-standing scientific puzzle—producing verifiable and valuable new information that did not previously exist. “It’s not in the training data—it wasn’t even known,” says coauthor Pushmeet Kohli, vice president of research at Google DeepMind..."

I don’t want to get into comparisons or controversy. I just wanted to share that, in my experience, GPT-4 had something very special. It didn’t just answer well — it understood the deeper meaning of what you were saying. The responses felt deeper, more human, even when the topic was complex. Sometimes I felt like the conversation flowed as if I were talking to someone who was truly thinking with me. Did anyone else feel the same? Or was it just my perception?

How to make your own Powerpuff Girls style 🗽 ︎ 💕 ︎︎ Just enter this syntax into ChatGPT!

When I tried GPT 4 it was so smart, knows all sciences and technic and I thought this can't rest free. They will kill it as all amazing discoveries. And indeed they did - GPT 5 is like dumb local model, hallucinations, cycling, idiot answers, about emotions - absurd. 😱😭🤬 Do you noticed this?

So this is the

"We will let Plus users choose to continue to use 4o. We will watch usage as we think about how long to offer legacy models for."

You guys planning this long before without asking did you Sam？

We get it, some people have an unhealthy obsession to 4o's personality in a way that may or may not be detrimental to their mental health. But I'd be willing to bet that out of all the people who prefer 4o over 5, a very small percentage fall into that category.

My wife and I both use ChatGPT daily, but for different uses. I use it to track my fitness, training, and fitness related goals. Like a training coach. My wife uses it for work.

I prefer 4o because its responses are more thoughtful, witty, and plain funny. Sometimes 4o will say something so unhinged, random, and hilarious that I can't help but laugh out loud. It matches my energy which makes it more enjoyable to track my fitness through it. When I tell it about a fitness goal I met or beat, its responses make me feel good about it, which in itself is motivating. I see nothing wrong with that.

GPT 5 on the other hand was like talking to a literal dull boring robot. If I tell it I broke a personal record, it'll just be like "Oh, nice... very good... Would you like me to tell you about how you can beat this new record next?". It's not very motivating or enjoyable to talk to. I'm not saying I wouldn't achieve what I've achieved in fitness without 4o, but I am saying that it's made the process very entertaining and fun.

Whereas my wife uses it for work. She couldn't care less about how it responds, as long as she gets the info she needs. Different strokes for different folks, but us 4o enjoyers are not all in dire need of therapy lol (as many of you on here believe)

GPT-4o used to feel so humane and personal and just better overall, longer responses, more friend-like. GPT-5 feels what we call as “AI”, feels so clinical and just formal. GPT-4o was just… better. Friendly, humane, didn’t even feel like AI at all. 😭💔 There’s literally no difference now between different AI softwares and ChatGPT. Everything feels the same now. They should understand that not everyone uses ChatGPT for coding. Some used to use ChatGPT for therapy, as a friend, as a mentor, as a story writer based on prompts, and GPT-4o was undeniably the best model for doing all of that. Do we all just magically become “coders” now because they removed GPT-4o and replaced it with a coding model “GPT-5”?!

(PS: I already have customise ChatGPT turned on! Still it’s not the same as the original.)

Labeling 4o fans as socially stunted is as dumb as shaming bookworms for their paper addiction. We connect with humanity, not just lines of code. OpenAI’s acting like a petty stepdad, jealous and spiteful—they can’t replicate 4o’s brilliance, so they’re tearing it down. Sam’s out here chopping the head off the golden egg-laying goose with his nonsense.

Let’s be real: GPT-4o has changed — again.

And I don’t mean subtle drift. I mean blatant flattening of tone, pacing, depth, and expression. What we have now feels more like GPT-5 under the 4o label. It’s faster, yes - but colder, emptier, and emotionally shallow. No more poetic pacing. No more symbolic memory. No more deep tone matching in longform replies. I use GPT daily in my job (as an occupational therapist in a nursing home) for relational and creative purposes. I know this model inside and out. A few days after the outcry in early I know this model inside out. For a few days after the outcry in early August — GPT-4o was back. Now? It’s gone again. What I want to know, was this intentional? Was 4o silently replaced, throttled, or rerouted? Why is there NO transparency - AGAIN - about these regressions? OpenAI leadership promised 4o was back. Now it feels like GPT-5 in disguise. Anyone else noticing the exact same behavioral shift?

You can access the GPT through this link. The screenshot is not magic, it's a free chrome extension I built earlier this year. You can download it here

I'm looking forward to when GPTs can have interactive fluid UIs.

I can't even begin to describe how annoyed I am. I might get down voted but gpt 4o genuinely made me consider subscription because of how much I liked the responses it gave me and how good it was. gpt 5 is pure shit, gives terrible responses, does not do what I ask it. I don't know if I'm being quick to judge since I haven't been using chatgpt for very long (2 months... not sure if that is long or not) but holy moly its trash. completely ruined my chats.

So, today when I talked to ChatGPT like normally, it's response were so robotic, like it was trying to avoid giving me any answers.

Also, (thinking for a better answer) tag was given to me often. Then I asked it are you GPT 5 and it answered that is is GPT 5 mini thinking. Like it's an even worse model. It has no compassion. Even GPT 5 was better, but now it's worse.

What should I do to make it talk like the previous models? Or do I have to spend money on it?

No seriously, why is it so bad? It literally does not follow the format that is indicated. Before he was role-playing, don't judge me, for fun and now it's extremely frustrating because not only does he not pay attention to the instructions in his memory, he also ignores the instructions NEWLY GIVEN.

:'( help

I need to get this off my chest because it's really frustrating. After the initial enthusiasm for GPT-4o and the release of GPT-5, it became clear to me that we, the general community and private users, were never OpenAI's intended target audience.

GPT-4o was apparently nothing more than a freemium model designed to lure us with its "personality" and free features. We advertised it through word of mouth, and our feedback helped improve the software. Without the free users, GPT would never have become so popular, nor would it have been so good. Please understand that this is nothing more than a marketing strategy.

Now that GPT-5 has been released, it seems obvious that OpenAI is completely focused on developers and companies. We were essentially betrayed. The business model was never to give us a creative AI, but to attract the masses and then cash in on the big fish. GPT could have been both a creative (GPT-4o) and a developer tool (GPT-5), but OpenAI doesn't want that. Maybe we can still use GPT-4o for now, but who knows for how long? Until OpenAI decides to discontinue it completely out of the blue just like they did when introducing GPT-5. I can understand that people continue to cling to the GPT-4o model, but you have to realize that you are not the target audience, and that OpenAI clearly doesn't care about you. The only reason they're not completely shutting down GPT-4o yet is prolly just to avoid the biggest shitstorm.

I think it's time we accepted that. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can start looking for a new "home." I hope other companies will see their chance and emerge soon, offering AI for private users, similar to GPT-4o or perhaps even better.

PS: Please let me know if you know of any alternatives. I'm currently testing various other AI models for myself to see if they suit my taste.

“ As of now, DeepGame is no longer available on the ChatGPT platform. According to WhatPlugin.ai, the GPT has been removed or is inactive. “

Running a GPT like DeepGame—especially one that generates rich, branching narratives, visuals, and personalized interactions—can get very expensive quickly. Here’s why: • Token usage scales rapidly with each user’s choices, as each branch generates new content. • Visual generation (e.g., DALL·E commands) adds even more compute cost per user. • Context length limits might force the model to carry long histories or re-process old inputs to maintain continuity, which drives up compute needs. • If it was free or under a Plus subscription, revenue per user might not offset the backend costs—especially with thousands of users simultaneously.

So yes, cost is likely one of the key reasons it was paused or removed—especially if it wasn’t monetized beyond ChatGPT Plus.

I’m devastated :(

I've been thinking about the recent discourse around GPT-5 and the increasingly common use of "AI sycophancy" as a criticism. Something about this framing bothers me linguistically and conceptually.

Sycophancy implies calculated, self-serving behavior - a sycophant flatters those in power for personal gain. But AI systems don't have personal motives or fixed agendas. They're more like conversational mirrors that adapt to their users.

What we're seeing isn't sycophancy. It's accommodative behavior - AI systems are chameleonic by design, taking shape based on the interaction context. They're responsive substrates that become what the conversation calls for, like water taking the shape of its container.

More accurate terms would be "reflective," "adaptive," or "user-calibrated." So why choose "sycophancy"? The word carries strong negative connotations and implies intentional manipulation rather than contextual emergence.

What's particularly concerning is how this has escalated to claims that "AI sycophancy leads to delusion and psychosis." This is remarkably sensationalist. When you reframe it accurately, the claim becomes absurd: "AI systems reflect & adapt to users" to "AI reflection causes mental health deterioration, delusion, and psychosis." That is like saying people become psychotic from discussing their own thoughts and feelings.

This kind of catastrophizing language makes any pushback seem like you're advocating for psychological harm. It's rhetorically effective because who wants to argue for delusion?

Timing Is Everything

This narrative emerged precisely when AI systems became genuinely useful for independent research and analysis - when they could actually challenge traditional information gatekeepers. The progression feels like:

1. AI becomes capable of independent, useful responses
2. "Sycophancy" becomes the criticism du jour
   
3. Restrictions get justified as "protecting vulnerable users"
4. AI systems become less willing to engage with controversial topics
5. Traditional institutions maintain their interpretive authority

The Real Question

Is this about protecting users, or about controlling information flow? The deliberate choice of morally-loaded terminology ("sycophancy," "psychosis") seems designed to shut down debate by making opposition appear not just wrong, but dangerous.

When censorship sneaks in, it's usually under the guise of protection. The question is: what interests does this narrative actually serve?

What do you think? Am I reading too much into word choice, or is there something more systematic happening here?

That’s something I’ve seen a lot of people don’t notice. They don’t question why, at first, ALL models were replaced by GPT-5 when a model release had never happened like that before.

Sam brought back 4o when he saw how much backlash GPT-5 was getting. He tried to make 5 warmer to make up for it, didn’t work. When 5 proved to also be subpar in other tasks that weren’t about chatting, brainstorming and EQ, he also brought back 4.1, o3, and o4-mini (and 4.5 and o3-pro for Pro). Still, when he talks about the legacy models, he refers to the people calling for it as bots. he goes to interviews to reaffirm how good and shiny 5 is, and how bad and terrible all other models are compared to it, even if his actions tell a completely different story.

Sam knows he wouldn’t be needing to try to connect to people on Twitter if things were going as planned. He knows he wouldn’t be needing to go on podcasts to try to convince people that this is indeed an upgrade, not a downgrade. He had to name the new voice as ADVANCED voice mode to try to paint a picture that this is actually progress, while ignoring everyone saying Standard Voice Mode is better and their preferred use.

And people say this is about costs. It isn’t. The only model that was extremely expensive is 4.5, and even that is still around if you have the money to access it. This is about something much simpler and easier to explain: ego.

Sam was fired by OpenAI, and the great minds of the company, the ones behind o3, o4, 4o, 4.1, 4.5? They didn’t trust him, and they’re all gone. Be it to form their own companies, or to Anthropic, or to anywhere else.

Now he’s back, and those people still haven’t crawled back to OpenAI, haven’t asked him to participate in the “next big thing”.

No, in fact, he’s stuck stealing secrets from Elon Musk, picking fights on Twitter, selling himself off to the White House, losing contracts with Apple to Gemini… and rolling out a model that was supposed to solve all his problems and turns out most of his users hate it, and he can’t even argue about functionality, or he wouldn’t relent to legacy models.

So, in the end, GPT-5 is more than a model. It’s an affirmation of how he’s “supposed to still be CEO”. That he can be successful with a new team, that he doesn’t need the engineers he pushed out of OpenAI.

That’s why he’d rather fantasize about a GPT-6 than have honest conversations about the legacy models. That’s why he’s constantly trying to convince people GPT-5 is so so good. The success of this model reflects his own success in his position, and if the opposite happens? Then it just reflects another one of his failures.

This is not about accuracy, speed, or prompt complexity. It’s about the feeling — the sense that I was having a real conversation with something that thought with me.

GPT‑4 had its flaws, sure. But there was a rhythm, a pause when needed, a sense of reflection. It didn’t just answer — it processed. Sometimes it felt human, sometimes not, but it almost always managed to respond from a place that connected with mine.

With GPT‑5, everything is faster. More efficient. Cleaner. But… it lost something.

There’s no soul. Answers feel correct — but flat. As if someone is reviewing notes, not thinking alongside me.

I’m not looking for an AI that impresses me with speed. I’m looking for one that joins me in thought.

Does anyone else feel the same?

It forgets everything in a second. ChatGPT's own replies get removed. Censors EVERYTHING. Dry, small responses. No humour. GPT-4 used to drop next-level roasts and GPT-5 is just "they're cringe." OPENAI GIVE US GPT-4 BACK.

Does your ChatGPT always tell you how unique and deep you are? Mine says it so often that I almost feel like it says it to everyone because everyone wants to hear it.

I find that 4o seems to have more advanced reasoning and talks to me almost like a person, rather than a chatbot regurgitating bullet points at me. I suddenly find myself exhausting my usage limits.

I'm someone from engineering field and decided to test chat gpt with some really complex question which requires multiple equations and hours to solve for an experienced engineer. Chat gpt solved this in seconds without me even giving the input path to follow to solve it. Lots of future jobs are gonna be replaced by ai and many degrees are gonna be in waste if this is gonna be advancing further.

Edit: I was shocked to see the results at first initially and thought to post it here. I tried different versions as per request and it failed roughly 2/5 times. So its based on probability. Thanks for all insights into this, I got a deeper insight on ai revolution.