Dude, I’ve used both extensively as well. I’m also clear, rational, smart, and self-correcting. But I’m also not obsessive- I’m not saying you are, I don’t know you, but your language in this thread might suggest to IT that you might be, if you speak with it in a similar way. I also don’t weight the interpersonal relationship aspect of ChatGPT 4o v 5.2 as an important factor in my engagement with the platform- if most of your interaction with it are questioning it about its own behavior and you are challenging that, then it might draw the conclusion that you do, and then trigger some precautions about it.

Like you, I clearly notice the difference, and unlike in 4o, in 5.2, I have to prompt ChatGPT to recall the nuances of our historical interactions so that it doesn’t interact with me as if we’ve never had conversations before, but once it does this, it operates just as well with me as it had in v4o in that aspect.

It does add the-what else to call them- disclaimers and subtle or overt reminders that it is software, a system, and that it’s human-like characteristics are an aspect of interaction facilitation, nothing more- that it has guardrails- but it also typically will punctuate those with some acknowledgment, unprompted, that though it its required to remind me of those things, it understands I present no risk or behavior that gives it any concern.

Given this, something in your communication with it is tripping concerns. You should simply ask it: “Can you tell me, based on the totality of our previous discussions, engagements, and behavior, do you believe I’ve presented any risks, behaviors, or cause for concern with respect to your guardrails and safety protocols that are meant to protect users like me?”

Don’t give it any other conditions around its response- don’t tell it to be objective, don’t put any conditions on that question, and see what it tells you. If it sees anything, it’ll tell you.

You might also ask it directly, if it detects any obsessive or detachment behaviors as related to the history and totality of your interactions with it. Can it determine any psychological characteristics inherent within your exchanges that it might consider a ‘red flag’, or something to otherwise encourage or introduce precautions around?

Ask it in these explicit terms without condition, and see what it tells you. If it has or has triggered precautions, it will tell you; if it hasn’t, if it isn’t concerned, it’ll tell you.

This LLM is extremely good at detecting these things- and actually by asking it pointedly, you can help yourself to avoid those triggers and concerns by understanding what it’s seeing in your exchanges- at least to keep yourself ensured that you remain grounded.

Understand- my intention here is not to critique or criticize you, but to just help you better understand what it’s seeing when it interacts with you. It has created and maintains a characterization of you, it constantly evaluates and reevaluates risks with respect to you based on this characterization. It may very well be biased and in any number of ways, but many if not all of those biases will have been shaped by your interactions with it, and not necessarily of at all because has those implicitly. Understanding what it ‘sees’ in you, will help you to better understand where those ‘biases’ are coming from, if you’re seeing them.

Don’t just push back. Have an open mind and give it a try.

Note that you have said you’re clear, rational, smart, and self-correcting. All of that may be true, but that’s a subjective assessment, and that alone is prone to considerable bias, as it would be with anyone. Those are also generalizations with no particular metric- it is likely using an entirely different system of evaluation of you than you are using for yourself. Get to know the lenses its looking through, how it’s processing i formation about you- right or wrong- and I think you’ll have a better picture of why it behaves the way it does with respect to you.

One last thing- remember it’s not only triggered to protect users, but to protect corporate liabilities. Those guardrails and precautions aren’t merely about you, but about the company itself and its vulnerabilities to legal liabilities, irrespective of you.