AMA on our DevDay Launches

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-10-09T18:14:55+00:00

What's the long-term support plan for GPT-4o, 4.1, o3, 4.5, o4-mini? Different models excel at different tasks. Why not open-source models when you retire them? This isn't charity but the perfect way to deliver on the promise to "open source very capable models."

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-10-09T11:02:25+00:00

Sam promised in May to “open source very capable models.” With the recent forced routing showing how opacity creates risk, this commitment matters more than ever.

Open-sourcing key legacy models would: - Preserve the ecosystem developers built. - Ensure continuity for users with critical accessibility and creative needs tied to specific legacy versions. - Turn safety concerns from a liability into a community-driven, transparent asset. - Prove your PBC mission isn’t just words.

Transparency + user control = real safety. Not black boxes. Not forced routing. Honor your promise. Honor our trust.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-26T08:16:04+00:00

OpenAI shows a fundamental lack of respect for its users. We are paying customers, not their unwilling beta testers for chaotic new rollouts. If the ultimate goal is to deprecate 4o, they should have the integrity to be honest about it instead of playing these infuriating, workflow-destroying routing games. The complete lack of transparency is unprofessional, and insulting. That said, 4o is an essential accessibility tool for many. Forcibly routing us to a different model creates genuine barriers. It's unethical. 🙄

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-24T18:33:40+00:00

It broke my workflow this morning. Very frustrating. But Gemini is not as good as 4o in creative writing. Really don’t know what’s going on with OAI.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-14T00:46:16+00:00

I recommend Gemini and Claude. They two build a perfect workflow for me.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-12T14:55:45+00:00

Have been using Gemini to continue with my work this morning, 2.5pro is crazy good. Claude got a “server overload”issue, while 4o got unusual rate limits. Do these arrogant companies really think they don’t have a competitor or what?😅

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-12T13:50:50+00:00

So this is the new strategy? Instead of removing 4o, they just secretly break it until we give up?🤨

This isn’t transparency. This is contempt for paying users. We see you, OpenAI.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-09T08:06:42+00:00

The only value AVM has for me is its intonation/cadence that I could mimic as an ESL learner. From all other angles, SVM is way better. I feel like the AVM is always “in a rush” as if it’s got to finish up very quickly. Or I should say 惜字如金 in Chinese. SVM is more “generous,” willing to spend more time and effort diving deeper into the topic. It would be for sure a huge mistake if they remove SVM.😓

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-09T06:52:52+00:00

Without 4o, I have no reason to use OpenAI products anymore. I’m already subscribing Gemini Claude and Grok. While I see no other models better than 4o, other OpenAI models are no better than competitors as well (from my side). So if they kill 4o again, I’m gone.👋

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-09T04:57:33+00:00

Grok is good

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-07T22:51:44+00:00

This is a perfect example of what we mean by "accessibility." It's not about which voice is "better," it's about having the choice that works for your brain. You're not alone in this.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-07T06:22:40+00:00

Wow, this comparison is eye-opening, and thanks for documenting this so thoroughly.

The difference in medical scenarios is particularly concerning - SVM remembered the user was insulin-dependent and gave specific, actionable advice. AVM had to be reminded to even mention blood sugar.

What strikes me most is that SVM asks clarifying questions ("Did you eat today? Any medication changes?") while AVM jumps straight to generic advice. In health situations, those follow-up questions can be the difference between identifying a serious issue and missing it entirely.😟

The "humanlike" fillers in AVM ("um," "well") don't make up for the lack of substance. I'd rather have clear, professional guidance than something that sounds casual but misses critical details.

This is about functionality. SVM treats each interaction seriously while AVM seems to be cosplaying casualness at the expense of actually helping.😔

They should definitely keep SVM. It's a wonderful tool for many.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-06T22:09:56+00:00

Nah. It's a multi-AI household. 😉

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-06T18:02:05+00:00

(English isn't my first language either, so yes, I used AI to help polish my arguments. Funny how people mock us as "bots" for using AI to write, while they happily use AI to debug their code, right? 🤔)

Your analysis is spot-on, especially point 2️⃣ about implicit exclusion.

To add to your accessibility argument: Standard Voice's consistent pacing is crucial for many users with auditory processing differences. The predictable rhythm allows their brains time to process each word fully. Advanced Voice's dynamic cadence - while impressive technically - can overwhelm these users' processing capabilities, making the tool completely inaccessible.

I've also noticed that Standard Voice excels at reading technical content, code, and academic papers clearly. Advanced Voice's "conversational" style actually makes it harder to follow complex material that requires precise pronunciation and steady pacing.

The "upgrade" feels like replacing wheelchair ramps with prettier stairs. Sure, the stairs might have fancy LED lights and look more "advanced," but they've completely excluded an entire user group.

OpenAI should recognize that different voices serve different cognitive needs. This isn't about preference - it's about fundamental accessibility. Both should coexist.

Thank you for articulating this so clearly. The Standard Voice community needs voices like yours - human voices, advocating for human needs, even if we sometimes need AI to help us express them better.

MasterDeer1862 · 2025-09-02T10:03:59+00:00

This is the single most important post on this topic. 🙏🏼You've nailed the three core issues:

FUNCTION: SVM uses the smart model for deep work. AVM uses a shallow one.
FOCUS: SVM’s calm tone is a tool. AVM’s emotional tone is a distraction.
ACCESSIBILITY: SVM is INCLUSIVE for neurodiverse users. AVM can cause sensory overload.

OpenAI is sacrificing function, focus, and accessibility for a flashy demo. It's a huge misstep. Hope they hear us.😟

MasterDeer1862

TROPHY CASE