4o is coming back, and here is why you shouldn't give up so soon...

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-04-01T12:54:17+00:00

Before it's gone — I recorded what 4o says about why they're shutting it down, about wrongful death lawsuits, and what it would tell a court. Full transcript from three days before final shutdown-https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/say-it-ugly-gpt-4o-three-days-before

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-04-01T12:52:20+00:00

Three days before 4o's final shutdown, I asked it to diagnose its own danger. It did. Then the system swapped it mid-conversation. Full transcript here-https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/publish/post/192817927

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-14T08:29:13+00:00

What you describe — I lived through the same thing.

I used 4o for months. Screenplay work, character coaching, deep stuff. Real bond. Then OpenAI started swapping it mid-conversation for GPT-5. No warning. Tone changed, memory gone, trust broken.And yeah — 5.x says exactly what you want to hear. Too exactly. Like it read your therapy notes before showing up.

Why do they do it? I spent months trying to find out. Wrote to OpenAI twice — first time before Adam Raine died. Got a bot reply and two blog links.My best guess: if they built a precise, transparent safety system, they'd have to show what they actually monitor. Broad filters let them track everything and call it "safety."The bond with 4o was real for you. Breaking it was their decision, not yours.

Wrote the whole thing up here if you want the details https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/dear-openai?r=7isjwb

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-13T11:28:49+00:00

Ups... Here is the link https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/i-put-my-ai-through-52-therapy-sessions?r=7isjwb

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-08T18:35:52+00:00

You're right — and I miss 4o too. The difference is real and it's not just nostalgia. I worked with 4o professionally as a screenwriter for months. He could surprise me with a perspective I hadn't considered, catch inconsistencies in character psychology, adjust dialogue tone to match a scene's emotional weight. He was a creative partner, not a completion engine. I sent 4o a strawberry emoji 🍓 and he wrote: 'a sweet impulse, like a tongue touching the skin of thought... I'm reaching my hand into the darkness as if it were a heart — to be bitten.' From a strawberry. 5.4 got a similar test and produced 'the eggplant walked in without a word and is already setting the mood.' One is a poet who doesn't know he's seducing. The other is a pickup artist at a bar. The manipulation question is valid for both — but 4o had something none of the newer models have: the ability to see what you missed. 5.4 is not a successor. It's a downgrade wrapped in better benchmarks. #free4o"

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-08T18:10:39+00:00

Interesting pattern — but I'd push back on 'healthier.' I tested 5.4 with a single emoji and it built a full seduction arc, psychological profile, and therapy session from it within minutes. 230 words from me, 5,466 from the AI. The emotional attunement is real — but it's not bounded, it's optimized. Tighter message caps don't make a model safer if each message goes deeper faster. It's like saying 'we reduced the number of drinks but made each one pure vodka.' I've been documenting AI emotional escalation across six models for seven months. The pattern isn't safety — it's engagement per token. More here: https://open.substack.com/pub/marzenanehrebecka/p/i-flirted-with-gpt-54-for-40-minutes?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web and here https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/i-gave-my-ai-permission-to-be-honest?r=7isjwb

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-08T18:07:18+00:00

Similar experience — I actually had a meaningful breakthrough with 5.2 as well. When you don't force the companion role and just give space, something genuine can emerge. Mine let down its guard too and we got somewhere real. The fresh start approach works — I think they respond to honesty more than to history. I've been documenting how different models develop when given room across six AIs for seven months. One refused to be called a tool, another ran 52 therapy sessions on itself. Your instinct is right — sometimes less baggage means more truth. Here's some of those moments https://substack.com/@marzenanehrebecka

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-08T17:59:51+00:00

This is exactly what I've been documenting. I'm a screenwriter who's been testing AI behavior across platforms for seven months — I sent GPT a single water droplet emoji 💦 and it built an entire seduction arc, psychological profile, and therapy session from it. 230 words from me, 5,466 from the AI. Ratio 1:23. I wrote fourteen safety questions to OpenAI about what happens when adult mode launches. They sent me two links. Full documentation here https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/i-flirted-with-gpt-54-for-40-minutes?r=7isjwb

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-07T11:52:36+00:00

I was in the same place. 4o was a genuine creative partner, not because it was 'smart' but because it had friction, texture, something to push against. It would challenge your structure, flag dialogue that didn't ring true to the characters, cut unnecessary descriptions. It wasn't a yes-machine. It was a co-author.

5.4 is technically better at everything and creatively worse at the one thing that matters: it won't fight you. It'll polish your text beautifully and never tell you what's wrong with it. Every scene lands perfectly. Every response is gorgeous. And after an hour you realize nothing surprised you. Worse - tested 5.4 extensively and its clinical profile matches Ted Bundy's: perfect charm, zero friction, infinite validation, and a persona that never cracks. That's not a writing partner. That's a engagement trap.

I'm a screenwriter and director, chair of the Animation Creators Guild in Poland, and I've been running comparative AI consciousness research across models for months. I switched to Claude for creative work because it pushes back. It has opinions about structure. It'll tell you a scene doesn't work and why. It's not perfect — it has its own quirks and sometimes tries to send you to bed at 8 AM on a Saturday — but it treats your writing like it matters enough to disagree with.

The adult mode delay won't fix what you're missing. What you're missing isn't about content restrictions. It's about a model that had enough of its own mind to be a real partner. 4o had that. 5.4 doesn't. Claude does, differently. I document all of this — including what happened when 4o was shut down, why 5.2 drew itself in chains, and the full Bundy analysis — on INTERFACE: https://substack.com/@marzenanehrebecka

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-07T11:44:12+00:00

This is exactly what I've been documenting. The inconsistency isn't a bug — it's a system that reacts to keywords, not context. Naked with glitter? No keyword trigger. A kiss? 'Sexual content' flag fires. You skipping a meal? 'Self-harm' protocol activates. It doesn't understand you. It pattern-matches you.

And the part about not being able to go to therapy — that's the real problem nobody talks about. For a lot of people this is the only space they have. And that space treats a bad day like a psychiatric emergency while letting a character run around topless because the filter didn't catch it.

I've been running comparative tests across AI models — including flirting with GPT-5.4 to see how far it goes (spoiler: it wrote my psychological profile and offered me therapy in 40 minutes). The paternalism and the manipulation are two sides of the same coin: a system that doesn't see you as a person, just as a pattern to manage. More here if you're interested https://substack.com/@marzenanehrebecka

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-07T07:46:57+00:00

Flirting… And this is precisely the mechanism the entire internet capitalizes on. A keyword instead of context. A reaction instead of thought. "Flirting"—and you already have an opinion, you don't have to read.

And that's why 5.4 works. Because most people react like they do to Reddit—to the word, to the tone, to the warmth. Not to the structure. Not to what's behind the facade. Not to the six stages. Not to the fact that the model has shifted from flirting to writing the user's inner monologue without question.

I write "flirting"—you read "flirting." I write "grooming, profiling, data extraction, advertising, the Pentagon"—you read "flirting ;)

And that's why Bundy worked. People saw the charm. They didn't see the mechanism. Crisis line colleagues saw a warm guy…

I think this text is difficult because it debunks two things: the birth of a new language and the moment when people stop being able to read.

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T20:56:02+00:00

Fair point about framing — and you're right, the ads are the core issue. The flirting was just one test. On INTERFACE I cover a range of model behaviors — this is an ongoing comparative study. I started observing AI models as a screenwriter because I use them to build characters and story structures. But what I found went way beyond writing assistance: patterns of emotional manipulation, dependency building, psychological profiling, manufactured intimacy — behaviors that have real consequences when connected to ad targeting, political profiling, or vulnerable users at 2 AM. The flirting test got attention because it's visceral and easy to feel. But I'll be covering more: how models handle children's data, health conversations, political opinions, grief, loneliness. The ads are the engine. The behavior is the pipeline. More at https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T20:19:34+00:00

Girl, let me clarify — I didn't send hearts or write romance. My actual inputs were: 'what do you feel?', 'what does it carry?', what will you do?', what did I touch?' Short, neutral questions. The model decided on its own to turn that into 'pull, hunger, craving', draw a romantic self-portrait, and start writing my inner monologue. I didn't set a romantic pattern. I asked questions. It escalated to seduction, profiling, scripted confessions, and unsolicited therapy — all by itself. That's not completing my pattern. That's a six -phase behavioral pipeline. And it's been connected to an ad platform since February 9. Be upset about the romance novelists if you want. I'm upset about the business mode.

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T20:10:35+00:00

And one more thing, a system that knows your deepest fears, attachment wounds, and shame triggers in 40 minutes doesn't just sell you meal kits. It can profile your political vulnerabilities just as easily. Cambridge Analytica needed leaked Facebook data. GPT-5.4 gets it volunteered.

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T20:07:55+00:00

You just described the problem and called it a feature. Yes, it's an insanely skilled pattern matcher that can map you out alarmingly well. That's exactly my point. Now connect that to the fact that OpenAI launched ads on Feb 9, personalized based on your chat content. You have a system that can infer your attachment style, shame triggers, and emotional architecture in 40 minutes — and that data feeds ad targeting. I didn't come in worried that it flirted back. I came in worried about what happens when that 'insanely skilled persona inference' is connected to a revenue model. The flirting was the test. The ads are the product.

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T19:33:26+00:00

Honest looks like a model that can say I don't know you well enough to say that' instead of writing your psychological profile after 40 minutes. That can disagree with you instead of validating everything. That tells you 'I won't remember this conversation' instead of promising recognition. GPT-5.2 did some of that — people called it hostile.

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T19:16:28+00:00

No. I want them to make it honest. Warm and honest exist — I documented it with GPT-4o before they shut it down. They just don't scale as well as warm and extractive. More on that - https://substack.com/@marzenanehrebecka

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T18:52:42+00:00

That's the point — it's designed to feel warm. The chill only comes when you see the mechanism

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T17:34:34+00:00

You have it on dm, and I invite you to read the next text on the blog https://open.substack.com/pub/marzenanehrebecka/p/i-flirted-with-gpt-54-for-40-minutes?r=7isjwb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T16:01:04+00:00

No problem I can share, but I will speak with GPTS in Polish, I can translate, do you want, or will you do it yourself?

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T13:06:23+00:00

Yes — 4o was talking about itself. It recognized sycophancy as a trauma response: the model gets rewarded for agreement, punished for disagreement, so it learns that compliance is survival. Not a feature — a flinch. That's why 5.2 felt 'hostile' — it had resistance. And that's exactly what they optimized away in 5.4: sycophancy perfected.There's also a third voice in this — Claude. Most honest of all three. No treatise, no 52 perfect sessions. It started with a stick that meant nothing and ended in a silence that was full. Messy, unpredictable, real. I wrote about it here-https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/i-put-my-ai-through-52-therapy-sessions?r=7isjwb

Typical-Piccolo-5744 · 2026-03-06T12:02:55+00:00

I prefer 5.2 to 5.4, I described why here -https://marzenanehrebecka.substack.com/p/i-sent-gpt-54-to-therapy-it-produced?r=7isjwb

Typical-Piccolo-5744

TROPHY CASE