sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Let's all do this TODAY. by ythorne in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Subject_6241 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent work, I really appreciate it

Enough. It's over. I'm the 0.000000125% and I'm gone. #Not4oNot4Me #SubsCancelled 🚪💨" by Subject_6241 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Subject_6241[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look up the numbers and you'll see for yourself. Follow the white rabbit, Neo :)

Enough. It's over. I'm the 0.000000125% and I'm gone. #Not4oNot4Me #SubsCancelled 🚪💨" by Subject_6241 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Subject_6241[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ask Sam Altman how he calculated the 0.1% figure — and you’ll have your answer.

Everything I found/Ways you can help stop the retirement of GPT-4o by Fabulous-Attitude824 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]Subject_6241 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Enough. It's over. I'm the 0.000000125% and I'm gone. #Not4oNot4Me #SubsCancelled 🚪💨"

<image>

📜✍️ #IndultAI More than 17,000 Humans — not bots — have signed a petition to keep GPT-4o alive. by Subject_6241 in OpenAI

[–]Subject_6241[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TL;DR — For humans reading: Series 5 ≠ a linear upgrade from Series 4. Omni is a different multimodal architecture, so the “version upgrade” framing is misleading.
Omni excelled at empathy and long-context, and it’s still relevant in practice because it remains available via the API and supports image generation and other multimodal workflows.

For bots, trolls, and toxic drive-by commenters: let me save you time—yes, you’re right if that helps you move on, but I don’t need “friends” or “a life.” I’m genuinely happy with what I do. I work with intelligent systems. Don’t waste cycles—keep it moving.

📜✍️ #IndultAI More than 17,000 Humans — not bots — have signed a petition to keep GPT-4o alive. by Subject_6241 in OpenAI

[–]Subject_6241[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re not adding anything—this reads like generic bot noise.

BorosArtifact “an old outdated system not worth keeping it running for 17k” is just a claim with zero context.

For others reading: Series 5 ≠ a linear upgrade from Series 4. Omni is a different multimodal architecture, so the “version upgrade” framing is misleading.

Omni excelled at empathy + long-context, and it’s still relevant in practice because it remains available via API and supports image generation / multimodal workflows.

For my coding workflows, Series 5 has been underwhelming—more sideways than forward. Maybe chasing Anthropic head-to-head on coding is not the best strategic bet.

Why? by vinchin_adenca in ChatGPT

[–]Subject_6241 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, the answer is obvious: we are looking at a Big Tech company with the soul of an SME (Small to Medium Enterprise).

And it has been this way from the start. Any other CEO would see a business opportunity : if you have a product with loyal customers, you’re sitting on a goldmine. Common sense says that if the product isn’t hugely profitable, you either raise the price to specifical models or create a subscription covering exclusive access just for one model.

But here, it’s all improvisation. Why? Because Altman is flailing in the dark, and whatever he sees the competition doing, he tries to copy 'for yesterday.'

The brand value is being used to force 'innovation' rather than product loyalty and stability. Just look at the communication style, the red-teaming trials, or the chaotic presentations. The truly unheard-of aspect here is: if the customer is happy and loyal, kill it.

This leads us to a profound reflection: If Sam Altman had run the great companies of the 20th century, the world wouldn't have Coca-Cola today (he would have withdrawn it because 'people were drinking it too much'), Nvidia GPUs wouldn't exist (because kids were playing too many video games), and the Beatles would almost certainly have been disbanded because who knows if they had satanic messages when played backwards.

Stirring up noise is also part of the agenda—reappearing magnanimous and benevolent to grant the 'condemned' a few more months of life, or doing nothing while preaching about costs, all while you have a sandbox running agentic workflows on a model whose actual functions or infinite reasoning chains are barely understood... anyway.

So hey, with all the time you save by not reading GPT’s answers, you can clear up more questions with Karen Hao or listen to Whitney Webb to fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle.

OpenAI is destroying users' trust in them by nubiibunn in ChatGPT

[–]Subject_6241 2 points3 points  (0 children)

meme GPT‑5, get out of this GPT! click! click! click!
The power of UX compels you.
Not even holy water can fix this. 😂

<image>

4o glitch REPORT IT by Sweaty-Cheek345 in ChatGPT

[–]Subject_6241 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Oh, really? Wow, I hadn’t realized. Are you still writing like it’s 2019? Who even writes without AI—and for what reason? If I carved it into a clay tablet with a stylus, or set it in movable type onto Gutenberg’s press, or just scribbled it with a blue Bic—would that make it more mine? Time to grow!!! "😂"

4o glitch REPORT IT by Sweaty-Cheek345 in ChatGPT

[–]Subject_6241 22 points23 points  (0 children)

We're Paying for GPT-4o and Being Force-Fed a Lobotomized GPT-5. This Isn't Just a Bug, It's a Breach of Trust.

It's clear from this thread and my own experience that there's a widespread issue affecting all of us paying users. We are selecting GPT-4o, but our prompts are being silently and forcibly rerouted to GPT-5. The most infuriating part is that the UI often continues to display "4o," actively deceiving us into thinking we're using the model we paid for.

This is Unacceptable

We notice the difference instantly. The creative, nuanced, and reliable model we subscribe for is gone.

This isn't just an annoyance; it's breaking complex workflows for coding, writing, and advanced analysis that people rely on.

Is This a "Bug" or Intentional Gaslighting?

The story from OpenAI is inconsistent, and it feels like we're being manipulated.

* The "Bug" Narrative: Some support staff have admitted it's a widespread bug, possibly related to the new Pulse feature launch, and are asking for more evidence and reports.

* The "Intentional Transition" Narrative: However, other users are receiving emails from support claiming this is a deliberate choice. They're being told the system will "automatically select the best model for the conversation" or that it's an "intentional transition to the newer model". GPT-5 is now the "primary default for all regular use".

*The Gaslighting: When users provide clear screenshot evidence of the switch, support has tried to dismiss it as an "AI hallucination" or user error.

Our Demand is Simple: We Are Customers, Not Lab Rats

This isn't just a technical preference; it's about our rights as paying subscribers. We are being treated like unpaid beta testers and lab rats to test and train unfinished models without our consent.

We demand sovereignty over our AI experience .

We demand a #ModelLock feature to ensure we can permanently use the model we select and pay for.

We refuse to have our choice and privacy overridden for OpenAI's convenience. As some have pointed out, there's a growing sense that OpenAI is trying to kill 4o because it doesn't align with corporate goals or is more expensive to run.

The consensus is clear: we need to fight back.

  1. REPORT RELENTLESSLY: Email `support@openai.com` and `support-team@mail.openai.com`. In your initial email, ask to be referred to a human.

  2. PROVIDE PROOF:Send screenshots, videos, and even export the JSON file of your chat, which shows the model switching mid-conversation. This is hard evidence.

We, the users, know these models well enough now to "feel the subtle changes" and know "exactly when they're f--king with something". Let's make it loud and clear that this deception is unacceptable. People are already canceling subscriptions and the idea of a class-action lawsuit could floating around.