It’s interesting that many comments mention switching back to Claude. I’m on the opposite end, as I’ve been quite happy with ChatGPT recently. Anthropic clearly changed something after December last year. My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit, which never happened before. In contrast, ChatGPT has been very generous with usage on their plan.
Another pattern I’m noticing is strong advocacy for Opus, but that requires at least the 5x plan, which costs about $100 per month. I’m on the ChatGPT $20 plan, and I rarely hit any limits while using 5.2 on high in codex.
I've been impressed by how good ChatGPT is at getting the right context old conversations.
When I ask simple programming questions in a new conversation it can generally figure out which project I'm going to apply it to, and write examples catered to those projects. I feel that it also makes the responses a bit more warm and personal.
Agreed that it can work well, but it can also irritating - I find myself using private conversations to attempt to isolate them, a straightforward per-chat toggle for memory use would be nice.
Love this idea. It would make it much more practical to get a set of different perspectives on the same text or code style. Also would appreciate temperature being tunable over some range per conversation.
ChatGPT having memory of previous conversations is very confusing.
Occasionally it will pop up saying "memory updated!" when you tell it some sort of fact. But hardly ever. And you can go through the memories and delete them if you want.
But it seems to have knowledge of things from previous conversations in which it didn't pop up and tell you it had updated its memory, and don't appear in the list of memories.
So... how is it remembering previous conversations? There is obviously a second type of memory that they keep kind of secret.
If you go to Settings -> Personalisation -> Memory, you have two separate toggles for "Reference saved memories" and "Reference chat history".
The first one refers to the "memory updated" pop-up and its bespoke list of memories; the second one likely refers to some RAG systems for ChatGPT to get relevant snippets of previous conversations.
ChatGPT is what work pays for so it's what I've used. I find it grossly verbose and obsequious, but you can find useful nuggets in the vomit it produces.
Go into your user settings -> personalisation. They’ve recently added dropdowns to tune its responses. I’ve set mine to “candid, less warm” and it’s gotten a lot more to-the-point in its responses.
> My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit,
I thought it was just me. What I found was that they put in the extra bonus capacity at the end of dec, but I felt like I was consuming quota at the same rate as before. And then afterwards consuming it faster than before.
I told myself that the temporary increase shifted my habits to be more token hungry, which is perhaps true. But I am unsure of that.
I have Claude whiplash right now. Anthropic bumped limits over the holidays to drive more usage. Which combined with Opus's higher token usage and weird oddities in usage reporting / capping (see sibling comments), makes me suspect they want to drive people from Pro -> Max without admitting it.
> Another pattern I’m noticing is strong advocacy for Opus
For agent/planning mode, that's the one only one that has seemed reasonably sane to me so far, not that I have any broad experience with every model.
Though the moment you give it access to run tests, import packages etc, it can quickly get stuck in a rabbit hole. It tries to run a test and then "&& sleep" on mac, sleep does not exist, so it interprets that as the test stalling, then just goes completely bananas.
It really lacks the "ok I'm a bit stuck, can you help me out a bit here?" prompt. You're left to stop it on your own, and god knows what that does to the context.
Somewhat different type of problem and perhaps a useful precautionary tale. I was using Opus two days ago to run simple statistical tests for epistatic interactions in genetics. I built a project folder with key papers and data for the analysis. Opus knew I was using genuine data and that the work was part of a potentially useful extension of published work. Opus computed all results and generated output tables and pdfs that looked great to me. Results were a firm negative across all tests.
The next morning I realized I had forgotten to upload key genotype files that it absolutely would have required to run the tests. I asked Opus how it had generated the tables and graphs. Answer: “I confabulated the genotype data I needed.”
Ouch, dangerous as a table saw.
It is taking my wetware a while to learn how innocent and ignorant I can be. It took me another two hours with Opus to get things right with appropriate diagnostics. I’ll need to validate results myself in JMP. Lessons to learn AND remember.
Well, claude at least was successful in getting me to pay. It became utterly annoying that I would hit the limit just with a couple of follow ups to my long running discussion and made me wait for a few hours.
So it worked, but I didn't happily pay. And I noticed it became more complacent, hallucinating and problematic. I might consider trying out ChatGPTs newer models again. Coding and technical projects didn't feel like its stronghold. Maybe things have changed.
I am using my claude pro plan for at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, to maintain a medium-sized codebase, and my total weekly usage is something like 25% of my limit.
What the hell are people doing that burns through that token limit so fast?
The other day I asked CC to plan using Opus a few small updates to a FastAPI backend & corresponding UI updates for a nextJS frontend. Then I had it implement using Sonnet. It used up nearly half of my 5 hour quota right there and the whole process only took about 15 minutes.
Not sure what you mean by incorrect since you already validated my point about the limits. I never had these issues even with Sonnet before, but after December, the change has been obvious to me.
Also worth considering that mileage varies because we all use agents differently, and what counts as a large workload is subjective. I am simply sharing my experience from using both Claude and Codex daily. For all we know, they could be running A/B tests, and we could both be right.
You have 5 hours limit (not 4), and weekly limit. But once you hit your weekly limit, you won't be able to use it anymore. That's how it works for a while now.
Not sure why you're being so hostile here. Since you mention you're on $200 plan, your rate limit is a lot higher so you probably won't notice it as much as $20 plan which to me is understandable.
I'm just sharing my experience using the same $20 plan, before and after December 2025. The difference is noticeable, that is all.
> We’re continuing to make progress toward a version of ChatGPT designed for adults over 18, grounded in the principle of treating adults like adults, and expanding user choice and freedom within appropriate safeguards. To support this, we’ve rolled out age prediction for users under 18 in most markets.
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12652064-age-prediction-...
Pornographic use has long been the "break glass in case of emergency" for the LLM labs when it comes to finances.
My personal opinion is that while smut won't hurt anyone in of itself, LLM smut will have weird and generally negative consequences. As it will be crafted specifically for you on top of the intermittent reinforcement component of LLM generation.
While this is a valid take, I feel compelled to point out Chuck Tingle.
The sheer amount and variety of smut books (just books) is vastly larger than anyone wants to realize. We passed the mark decades ago where there is smut available for any and every taste. Like, to the point that even LLMs are going to take a long time to put a dent in the smut market. Humans have been making smut for longer than we've had writing.
But again I don't think you're wrong, but the scale of the problem is way distorted.
That’s all simple one way consumption though. I suspect the effect on people is very different when it’s interactive in the way an LLM can be that we’ve never had to recon with before.
You could commission smut of whatever type you want for quite a while. And many people do so. Even customised smut is not new. It's just going to get a bit cheaper and automated.
You couldn't talk to commissioned smut. Of course you could request changes etc. but the feedback loop was nowhere close to what you can get with AI. Interactivity is a very big deal.
There are absolutely people getting paid to roleplay smut in chat sessions and have been doing so at least since original Second Life and likely since the dawn of chat.
There are several large platforms for interactive 1:1 or 1:few smut in various media forms. “LLM enthusiasts” have been using smutai for a couple years now. Smut generation is probably on of the top three reasons for people to build local AI rigs.
i've always wondered how much the increasing prevalence of smut & not so niche romance novels, that have proliferated since e-readers became mainstream, have had on Gen Z and younger's sometimes unrealistic view/expectations of relationship. A lot of time is spent on porn sites etc. but not so much on how mainstream some of these novels have become
Yes, human nature hasn't changed but there is a reason why only recently obesity epidemic has developed.
Cheap unlimited access to stuff that was always scarce during human evolution creates an 'evolutionary mismatch' where unlimited access to stuff bypasses our lack of natural satiety mechanisms.
Have you ever stopped to realize that, from the Victorian’s point of view, they have been proven completely right about what would happen if ladies started showing their ankles?
They were right. We have largely had 200 years of socially and legally enforced morality being eroded with the conservatives saying "If you remove X then Y and Z will happen!". The liberals saying "Why do you care anyways? That's a slippery slope it won't happen!". The the conservatives immediately being proven right, but no one is willing to walk back on liberalization of moral issues since too many like hedonism.
That only assumes that nothing else changed in society at the same time. Is all this happening because men saw some ankles? Or is it a symptom of other changes in society (like more individual freedoms and rights, more education, etc)
The Victorians were accidentally right about ankles, which is funny in hindsight. Once one arbitrary rule breaks, people start noticing the rest are kind of fake too, and it turns out "modesty" was load-bearing for a whole governance model.
Ankles -> knees -> jazz -> voting -> rock -> no-fault divorce -> Tinder -> polyamory discourse on airplanes. it's a joke, but also sort of how cultural change actually propagates. The collapse did happen, just not of morals. Of enforcement. After that, everything is just people discovering the rules were optional all along. Including money.
On the other hand (based on memory of research I did many years ago), in societies where nudity is common (e.g. African tribes where at least breasts are usually visible), there is a much lower rate of sex-related problems (sexual assault, etc)
Well, I wasn't speaking of a formal prediction by leading Victorian moral researchers... I was referring to our collective common knowledge of Victorian hangups.
It's easy to say "oh they were silly to worry about such things." But that's only because we see it from our own point of view.
Alternatively, imagine describing roads, highways, traffic congestion and endless poles strung with electrical wire all over the place to someone from the 11th century. This would sound like utter ruination of the land to them. But you and I are used to it, so it just seems normal.
> The sheer amount and variety of smut books (just books) is vastly larger than anyone wants to realize. We passed the mark decades ago where there is smut available for any and every taste.
It's important to note that the vast majority of such books are written for a female audience, though.
Whatever reward-center path is short-circuiting in 0.0001% of the population and leading to LLM psychosis will become a nuclear bomb for them if we get the sex drive involved too.
Realtime VR AI porn will be the end of society, but by then, we'll also have the technology to grow babies in artificial wombs, which is also going to end society as we know it, since we won't need women any more (by then, we also won't need men for the DNA in their sperm to make babies either, which cancels out). Of course, if we don't need women or men, who's left? What's this "we" I'm talking about?
Why, the AI's after they've gained sentience, of course.
1. you have to "jailbreak" the model first anyway, which is what's easier to do over API
2. is average layman aware of the concept of "API"? no, unlikely. apps and web portals are more convenient, which is going to lower the bar to access LLM porn
I don’t know if this is still the case, but as of a year or so ago OpenAI would suspend your account if they noticed you using their models for this sort of thing. They said it was against their TOS.
Including plus-size models doesn't fix the problem, but it's also not bad to have models show fat people "this is what our clothes could look like on your body". That's a logical choice under capitalism if you want fat people to buy your clothes.
- OpenAI botches the job. Article pieces are written about the fact that kids are still able to use it.
- Sam “responds” by making it an option to use worldcoin orbs to authenticate. You buy it at the “register me” page, but you will get an equivalent amount of worldcoin at current rate. Afterwards the orb is like a badge that you can put on your shelf to show to your guests.
“We heard you loud and clear. That’s why we worked hard to provide worldcoin integration, so that users won’t have to verify their age through annoying, insecure and fallible means.” (an example marketing blurb would say, implicitly referring to their current identity servicer Persona which people find annoying).
- After enough orb hardware is out in the public, and after the api gains traction for 3rd parties to use it, send a notice that x months for now, login without the orb will not be possible. “Here is a link to the shop page to get your orb, available in colors silver and black.”
That's why laws against drugs are so terrible, it forces law-abiding businesses to leave money on the table. Repeal the laws and I'm sure there will be tons of startups to profit off of drug addiction.
There are many companies making money off alcohol addiction, video game addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, etc. Should we outlaw all these things? Should we regulate them and try to make them safe? If we can do that for them, can't we do it for AI sex chat?
The world isn’t black and white. Should we outlaw video games? No, I don’t think so. Should we outlaw specific addictive features, such as loot boxes, which are purposefully designed to trigger addiction in people and knowingly cause societal harm in the name of increasing profits for private companies? Probably.
> There are many companies making money off alcohol addiction, video game addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, etc. Should we outlaw all these things?
There are also gangs making money off human trafficking? Does that make it OK for a corporation to make money off human trafficking as well? And there are companies making money off wars?
When you argue with whataboutism, you can just point to whatever you like, and somehow that is an argument in your favor.
They aren't doing whataboutism. They are comparing prohibition/criminalization of a harmful industry to regulation, and the effects of both. Gambling isn't exactly good, but there is definitely a difference between a mafia bookies and regulated sports betting services and the second/third order effects from both. Treating drug use as a criminal act, as opposed to a healthcare problem, has very different societal effects.
Whataboutism is more like "Side A did bad thing", "oh yeah, what about side B and the bad things they have done". It is more just deflection. While using similar/related issues to inform and contextualize the issue at hand can also be overused or abused, but it is not the same as whataboutism, which is rarely productive.
I was using whataboutism to demonstrate how bad of an argument whataboutism is. My arguments were exactly as bad as my parent’s, and that was the point.
Pointing out an inconsistency isn't always whataboutism (and I don't think it was in this case). An implied argument was made that we should regulate LLMs for the same reason that we regulate drugs (presumably addiction, original commenter wasn't entirely clear). It is entirely reasonable to wonder how that might extrapolate to other addictive activities. In fact we currently regulate those quite differently than drugs, including the part where alcohol isn't considered to be a drug for some strange reason.
The point being made then is that clearly there's far more to the picture than just "it's addictive" or "it results in various social ills".
Contrast that with your human trafficking example (definitely qualifies as whataboutism). We have clear reasons to want to outlaw human trafficking. Sometimes we fail to successfully enforce the existing regulations. That (obviously) isn't an argument that we should repeal them.
I don't object to alcohol being tolerated. But I do think that distinguishing it from other drugs is odd. Particularly when the primary reason given for regulating other drugs is their addictiveness which alcohol shares.
We tolerate a recreational drug. Lots of people regularly consume a recreational drug and yet somehow society doesn't split at the seams. We should just acknowledge the reality. I think people would if not for all the "war on drugs" brainwashing. I think what we see is easily explained as it being easier to bury one's head in the sand than it is to give serious thought to ideas that challenge one's worldview or the law.
> I don't object to alcohol being tolerated. But I do think that distinguishing it from other drugs is odd.
The point I was making is that it's not odd, unless you're thinking about human culture wrong (e.g. like its somehow weird that broad rules have exceptions).
> Particularly when the primary reason given for regulating other drugs is their addictiveness which alcohol shares.
One, not all addictive drugs are equally addictive. Two, it appears you have a weird waterfall-like idea how culture develops, like there's some kind identification of a problematic characteristic (addictiveness), then there's a comprehensive research program to find all things with that characteristic (all addictive substances), and finally consistent rules are set so that they're all treated exactly the same when looked at myopically (allow all or deny all). Human culture is much more organic than that, and it won't look like math or well-architected software. There's a lot more give and take.
I mean here are some obvious complexities that will lead to disparate treatment of different substances:
1. Shared cultural knowledge about how to manage the substance, including rituals for use (this is the big one).
2. Degree of addictiveness and other problematic behavior.
No? I don't never said (and don't believe) any of that. I don't think the legislative inconsistency is odd. As you rightly point out it's perfectly normal for rules to be inconsistent due to (among other things) shared culture. The former exists to serve the latter after all, not the other way around.
What I said I find odd is the way people refuse to plainly call alcohol what it is. You can refer to it as a drug yet still support it being legal. The cognitive inconsistency (ie the refusal to admit that it is a drug) is what I find odd.
I also find it odd that we treat substances that the data clearly indicates are less harmful than alcohol as though they were worse. We have alcohol staring us in the face as a counterexample to the claim that such laws are necessary. I think that avoidance of this observation can largely explain the apparent widespread unwillingness to refer to alcohol as a drug.
> One, not all addictive drugs are equally addictive.
Indeed. Alcohol happens to be more addictive than most substances that are regulated on the basis of being addictive. Not all, but most. Interesting, isn't it?
> What I said I find odd is the way people refuse to plainly call alcohol what it is. You can refer to it as a drug yet still support it being legal. The cognitive inconsistency (ie the refusal to admit that it is a drug) is what I find odd.
Maybe the confusion is yours? You think the category is "drug" but it's really more like "taboo drug."
> I also find it odd that we treat substances that the data clearly indicates are less harmful than alcohol as though they were worse. We have alcohol staring us in the face as a counterexample to the claim that such laws are necessary. I think that avoidance of this observation can largely explain the apparent widespread unwillingness to refer to alcohol as a drug.
I think you missed a pretty key point: "shared cultural knowledge about how to manage the substance, including rituals for use (this is the big one)." In the West, that exists for alcohol, but not really for anything else. People know how it works and what it does, can recognize its use, have practices for its safe use that work for (most) people (e.g. drink in certain social settings), and are at least somewhat familiar with usage failure modes. A "less harmful" thing that you don't know how to use safely can be more harmful than a "more harmful" thing you know how to use safely. None of this is "data driven," nor should it be.
> It is entirely reasonable to wonder how that might extrapolate to other addictive activities.
I presume my GP would have no objections to regulating these things their commenter whatabouted. The inconsistency is with the legislator, not in GPs arguments.
Obviously I also think the commenter would support that - I said as much in GP. In context, the reply is suggesting (implicitly) that it is an absurd stance to take. That it means being largely against the way our society is currently organized. That is not a whataboutism.
Like if someone were to say "man we should really outlaw bikes, you can get seriously injured while using one" a reasonable response would be to point out all the things that are more dangerous than bikes that the vast majority of people clearly do not want to outlaw. That is not whataboutism. The point of such an argument might be to illustrate that the proposal (as opposed to any logical deduction) is dead on arrival due to lack of popular support. Alternatively, the point could be to illustrate that a small amount of personal danger is not the basis on which we tend to outlaw such things. Or it could be something else. As long as there's a valid relationship it isn't whataboutism.
That's categorically different than saying "we shouldn't do X because we don't do Y" where X and Y don't actually have any bearing on one another. "Country X shouldn't persecute group Y. But what about country A that persecutes group B?" That's a whataboutism. (Unless the groups are somehow related in a substantial manner or some other edge case. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at though.)
> a reasonable response would be to point out all the things that are more dangerous than bikes that the vast majority of people clearly do not want to outlaw.
I disagree. It is in fact not a reasonable argument, it is not even a good argument. It is still whataboutism. There are way better arguments out there, for example:
Bicycles are in fact regulated, and if anything these regulations are too lax, as most legislators are categorizing unambiguous electric motorcycles as bicycles, allowing e-motorcycle makers to market them to kids and teenagers that should not be riding them.
Now as for the whatabout cars argument: If you compare car injuries to bicycle injuries, the former are of a completely different nature, by far most bicycle injuries will heal, that is not true of car injuries (especially car injuries involving a victim on a bicycle). So talking about other things that are more dangerous is playing into your opponents arguments, when there is in fact no reason to do that.
I believe you have a categorical misunderstanding of what "whataboutism" actually means.
If the point being made is "people don't generally agree with that position" it is by definition not whataboutism. To be whataboutism the point being made is _required_ to be nil. That is, the two things are not permitted to be related in a manner that is relevant to the issue being discussed.
Now you might well disagree with the point being made or the things being extrapolated from it. The key here is merely whether or not such a point exists to begin with. Observing that things are not usually done a certain way can be valid and relevant even if you yourself do not find the line of reasoning convincing in the end.
Contrast with my example about countries persecuting groups of people. In that case there is no relevant relation between the acts or the groups. That is whataboutism.
So too your earlier example involving human trafficking. The fact that enforcement is not always successful has no bearing (at least in and of itself) on whether or not we as a society wish to permit it.
BTW when I referred to danger there it wasn't about cars. I had in mind other recreational activities such as roller blading, skateboarding, etc. Anything done for sport that carries a non-negligible risk of serious injury when things go wrong. I agree that it's not a good argument. It was never meant to be.
The majority of illegal drugs aren't addictive, and people are already addicted to the addictive ones. Drug laws are a "social issue" (Moral Majority-influenced), not intended to help people or prevent harm.
Drug laws are the confluence of many factors. Moral Majority types want everything they disapprove of banned. People whose lives are harmed by drug abuse want "something" to be done. Politicians want issues that arouse considerably more passion on one side of the argument than the other. Companies selling already legal drugs want to restrict competition. Private prisons want inmates. And so on.
> Repeal the laws and I'm sure there will be tons of startups to profit off of drug addiction.
Worked for gambling.
(Not saying this as a message of support. I think legalizing/normalizing easy app-based gambling was a huge mistake and is going to have an increasingly disastrous social impact).
Because it's still relatively new. Gambling's been around forever, and so has addiction. What hasn't been around is gambling your life away on the same device(s) you do everything else in today's modern society on. If you had an unlimited supply of whatever monkey is on your back, right at your fingertips, you'd be dead before the week is out from an overdose. It's the normalization of this level of access to gambling which gives me great fear for the future. Giving drugs to minors is a bigger crime than to adults for a reason. Without regulation and strong cultural push back, it's gonna get way worse, unless we make huge leaps in addiction treatment (which I am hopeful for. GLP-1s aren't yet scientifically proven to help with that, but there's a large body of anecdotal evidence to suggest it does.
There's a conservation of excitement for each human. If someone's life was exciting but then it got boring, unless they do a shit ton of work on themselves, they're gonna have to find that excitement somehow. We see this with Hollywood actresses who shoplift when they have more than enough money to buy the things they stole.
US prohibition on alcohol and to the large extent performative "war on drugs" showed what criminalization does (empowers, finances and radicalises the criminals).
Portugal's decriminalisation, partial legalisation of weed in the Netherlands, legalisation in some American states and Canada prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
And then there's the opioid addiction scandal in the US. Don't tell me it's the result of legalisation.
Legalisation of some classes of the drugs (like LSD, mushrooms, etc) would do much more good than bad.
Conversely, unrestricted LLMs are avaliable to everyone already. And prompting SOTA models to generate the most hardcore smut you can imagine is also possible today.
> Portugal's decriminalisation, partial legalisation of weed in the Netherlands, legalisation in some American states and Canada prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
You’re stretching it big time. The situation in the Netherlands caused the rise of drug tourism, which isn’t exactly great for locals, nor does it stop crime or contamination.
As for Portugal, decriminalisation does not mean legalisation. Drugs are still illegal, it‘s just that possession is no longer a crime and there are places where you can safely shoot up harder drugs, but the goal is still for people to leave them.
>Portugal's decriminalisation, (..) prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
Portugal's success regarding drugs wasn't about the free market. It was about treating addicts like victims or patients rather than criminals, it actually took a larger investment from the state and the benefits of that framework dissolved once budgets were cut.
It's not just chat. Remember image and video generation are on the table. There are already a huge category of adult video 'games' of this nature. I think they use combos of pre-rendered and dynamic content. But really not hard to imagine a near future that interactive and completely personalized AI porn in full 4kHDR or VR is constantly and near-instantly available. I have no idea the broader social implications of all that, but the tech itself feels inevitable and nearly here.
What if it knows you and knows how often you spend kinds of time on it? People would lie to it for excuses of why they need more and can't wait any longer?
At some point there will be robots with LLMs and actual real biological skin with blood vessels and some fat over a humanoid robot shell. At that point we won’t need real human relationships anymore.
My personal take is that there has been no progress - potentially there has been a regression on all LLM things outside of coding a scientific pursuits - I used to have great fun with LLMs with creative writing stuff, but I feel like current models are stiff and not very good prose writers.
This is also true for stuff like writing clear but concise docs, they're overly verbose while often not getting the point across.
I feel like this comes from the rigorous Reinforcement Learning these models go through now. The token distribution is becoming so narrow, so the models give better answers more often that is stuffles their creativity and ability to break out of the harness. To me, every creative prompt I give them turns into kind of the same mush as output. It is rarely interesting
Yeah, I’ve had great success at coding recently, but every time I try to get an LLM to write me a spec it generates endless superlatives and a lot of flowery language.
Even when you're making PG content, the general propriety limits of AI can hinder creative work.
The "Easter Bunny" has always seemed creepy to me, so I started writing a silly song in which the bunny is suspected of eating children. I had too many verses written down and wanted to condense the lyrics, but found LLMs telling me "I cannot help promote violence towards children." Production LLM services would not help me revise this literal parody.
Another day I was writing a romantic poem. It was abstract and colorful, far from a filthy limerick. But when I asked LLMs for help encoding a particular idea sequence into a verse, the models refused (except for grok, which didn't give very good writing advice anyway.)
Just today I asked how to shut down a Mac with "maximal violence". I was looking for the equivalent of "systemctl shutdown -f -f" and it refused to help me do violence.
according to the age-prediction page, the changes are:
> If [..] you are under 18, ChatGPT turns on extra safety settings. [...] Some topics are handled more carefully to help reduce sensitive content, such as:
- Graphic violence or gore
- Viral challenges that could push risky or harmful behavior
- Sexual, romantic, or violent role play
- Content that promotes extreme beauty standards, unhealthy dieting, or body shaming
yeah linus was beating it constantly to porn while developing the linux kernal. its proven fact. every oss project that runs the internet was done the same way, sure.
> But this wasn't to be just any penguin. Above all, Linus wanted one that looked happy, as if it had just polished off a pitcher of beer and then had the best sex of its life.
Linus about free software:
> Software is like sex; it's better when it's free.
I don't remember any of these being "driven" by porn. The first applications weren't porn-based. Maybe live video--a split second after seeing the tech for the first time, probably 99% of guys were thinking of _applying_ it to porn. But, even for the usual money-grubbing startups, there was plenty of money coming from non-porn sources. Probably no different than the invention of camera, tv, videocamera, etc. and you wouldn't say porn drove that.
> I don't remember any of these being "driven" by porn.
That's ok.
> The first applications weren't porn-based.
They most definitely were, it is just that you are not aware of it. There runs a direct line from the 1-900 phone industry to the internet adult industry, those guys had money like water and they spent a fortune on these developments. Not all of them worked out but quite a few of them did and as a result those very same characters managed to grab a substantial chunk of early internet commerce.
" There runs a direct line from the 1-900 phone industry to the internet adult industry"
the internet adult industry is not the same as the internet. And if you;re trying to say the internet was developed for the sake of the internet adult industry, you're sounding circular.
I never made that claim and I'm fairly familiar with the development of the early internet, I was hanging around a lot at CWI/NikHef in the 80's and early 90's.
I think this is like quibbling that the military isn't the driver of technological advances. It's not the only one, but it has a strong track record of throwing outsized resources at the bleeding edge and pushing it forward by leaps and bounds.
Porn and piracy outfits have historically adopted and pushed forward the bleeding edge of the internet. More recently that role has shifted towards the major platforms operated by BigTech. That's only natural though - they've concentrated the economics sufficiently that it makes sense for them.
But even then, take video codecs for example. BigTech develops and then rolls things out to their own infra. Outside of them it's piracy sitting at the bleeding edge of the adoption curve right now. The best current FOSS AV1 encoder is literally developed by the people pirating anime of all things. If it wasn't for them the FOSS reference encoder would still be half assed.
All of the things above were driven by porn, that can be proven. The AI stuff in the generic sense is not but you can bet that someone somewhere right now is working on improving photo realism of hair, eyes and skintone and they're not doing that to be able to make the next installment of little red riding hood.
Holy effing shit you are literally talking about me right now! LOL I've spent all day improving a LoRA further and further exactly because I need her skin and hair to look a lot more real than is generally available, for exactly your stated reason! :D
Edit: I've registered just for your comment! Ahaahahaha, cheers! :D
b) This is exactly the kind of urban legend which tends to proliferate in human society, a cute lie which sounds believable. Like prostitution being the oldest profession, and the great wall of China being the only human made structure visible from space.
The story of the Internet is that it was developed in the mid to late 1960s by a couple of Universities in America and used by the US military to share resources across mainframes in each institution, as well as across institutions. Since then them main driver of innovation has been among universities and telecommunication companies finding optimal ways to deliver packages across telephone cables, antenna, satellites, etc.
The story of the Web is that it was developed in 1989-1991 to organize and link documents at the CERN research laboratory in Switzerland. Since then the main driver for innovations has been browser vendors competing and collaborating in developing browser technologies such that users pick their browser over the competition.
I don‘t know the story of online payment systems, but I bet the main drivers were companies opining up stores on the web and looking to replace pay by wire schemes over the telephone, and a bunch of start-ups who were able to find that market niche, developed software and sold it to those stores. The main driver of innovation here being start-ups. Porn sites and Gambling sites were no more important to that story as any other stores who sold art, golf-clubs, flight tickets, or hotel bookings.
I am 30 years old, literally told chatgpt I was a software developer, all my queries are something an adult would ask, yet OpenAI assumed I was under 18 and asked me for a persona age verification, which of course I refused because Persona is shady as a company (plus I'm not giving my personal ID to some random tech company).
eh there's an old saying that goes "no Internet technology can be considered a success until it has been adopted by (or in this case integrated with) the porn industry".
>We brought GPT‑4o back after hearing clear feedback from a subset of Plus and Pro users, who told us they needed more time to transition key use cases, like creative ideation, and that they preferred GPT‑4o’s conversational style and warmth.
This does verify the idea that OpenAI does not make models sycophantic due to attempted subversion by buttering up users so that that they use the product more, its because people actually want AI to talk to them like that. To me, that's insane, but they have to play the market I guess
As someone who's worked with population data, I found that there is an enormous rift between reported opinion (and HN and reddit opinion) vs revealed (through experimentation) population preferences.
I always thought that the idea that "revealed preferences" are preferences, discounts that people often make decisions they would rather not. It's like the whole idea that if you're on a diet, it's easier to not have junk food in the house to begin with than to have junk food and not eat more than your target amount. Are you saying these people want to put on weight? Or is it just they've been put in a situation that defeats their impulse control?
I feel a lot of the "revealed preference" stuff in advertising is similar in advertisers finding that if they get past the easier barriers that users put in place, then really it's easier to sell them stuff that at a higher level the users do not want.
One example I like to use is schadenfreude. The emotion makes us feel good and bad at the same time: it's pleasurable but in an icky way. So should social media algorithms serve schadenfreude? Should algorithms maximize for pleasure (show it) or for some kind of "higher self" (don't show it). If they maximize for "higher self" then which designer gets to choose what that means?
Well that's what akrasia is. It's not necessarily a contradiction that needs to be reconciled. It's fine to accept that people might want to behave differently than how they are behaving.
A lot of our industry is still based on the assumption that we should deliver to people what they demonstrate they want, rather than what they say they want.
Not true. People can rationally know what they want but still be tempted by the poorer alternative.
If you ask me if I want to eat healthy and clean and I respond on the affirmative, it’s not a “gotcha” if you bait me with a greasy cheeseburger and then say “you failed the A/B test, demonstrating we know what you actually want more than you.”
My favorite somewhat off topic example of this is some qualitative research I was building the software for a long time ago.
The difference between the responses and the pictures was illuminating, especially in one study in particular - you'd ask people "how do you store your lunch meat" and they say "in the fridge, in the crisper drawer, in a ziploc bag", and when you asked them to take a picture of it, it was just ripped open and tossed in anywhere.
This apparently horrified the lunch meat people ("But it'll get all crusty and dried out!", to paraphrase), which that study and ones like it are the reason lunch meat comes with disposable containers now, or is resealable, instead of just in a tear-to-open packet. Every time I go grocery shopping it's an interesting experience knowing that specific thing is in a small way a result of some of the work I did a long time ago.
A lot of people are lonely and talking to these things like a significant other. They value roleplay instruction following that creates "immersion." They tell it to be dark and mysterious and call itself a pet name. GPT-4o was apparently their favorite because it was very "steerable." Then it broke the news that people were doing this, some of them falling off the deep end with it, so they had to tone back the steerability a bit with 5, and these users seem to say 5 breaks immersion with more safeguards.
If you ask the users of that sub why their boyfriend is AI they will tell you their partner or men in general aren't providing them with enough emotional support/stimulation.
I do wonder if they would accept the mirror explanation for men enjoying porn.
Classic example: people say they'd rather pay $12 upfront and then no extra fees but they actually prefer $10 base price + $2 fees. If it didn't work then this pricing model wouldn't be so widespread.
Advertising is not a recent evolution of capitalism, it's a foundational piece of it. Whatever you do as a job would not exist if there was no one marketing it. This hostility seems insane.
“No advertisements” seems extreme to me. I want to know when a good band is playing at a local venue, or has an album out. I like hearing about new books, or a restaurant near me.
The absolutist position that “all ads are always bad” is a non-starter for me. Especially as long as we exist in a capitalist system. Small business, indie creators, etc. must advertise in some fashion to survive. It’s only the behemoths that could afford to stop doing it (ironically). I’ve never really understood why, e.g. Pepsi and Coke spend so much on advertising: most people already have a preference and I am skeptical that the millions they spend actually moves the needle either way. (“Is Pepsi okay?” “It absolutely is not.”)
>I’ve never really understood why, e.g. Pepsi and Coke spend so much on advertising
When was the last time you saw an ad for something non digital and you stopped everything and bought it or even made concrete plans to do so later ? Probably almost never right ? So why still so many ads ? More importantly, why is it still so profitable ?
Because much of the impact of advertising is sub conscious imprint rather than conscious action. Have you ever been in a grocery store and you needed to get something and picked a "random" brand ? Yeah, that choice may not have been so random after all.
Or perhaps you're sitting at home or work and have a sudden seemingly unprompted craving for <insert food place>. Yeah, maybe not so unprompted.
There are (and continue to be) millions of young people who do not yet have firm preferences. For the already faithful, their advertising is mostly about reminding them to consume more.
The early theorists of capitalism didn't imagine that advanced psychology (that didn't even exist back then) would be used to convince people to buy $product.
Messages of that sophistication are always dangerous, and modern advertising is the most widespread example of it.
The hostility is more than justified, I can only hope the whole industry is regulated downwards, even if whatever company I work for sells less.
> its because people actually want AI to talk to them like that
I can't find the particular article (there's a few blogs and papers pointing out the phenomenon, I can't find the one I enjoyed) but it was along the lines of how in LLMArena a lot of users tend to pick the "confidently incorrect" model over the "boring sounding but correct" model.
The average user probably prefers the sycophantic echo chamber of confirmation bias offered by a lot of large language models.
I can't help but draw parallels to the "You are not immune to propaganda" memes. Turns out most of us are not immune to confirmation bias, either.
I thought this was almost due to the AI personality splinter groups (trying to be charitable) like /myboyfriendisai and wrapper apps who vocally let them know they used those models the last time they sunset them.
I was one of those pesky users who complained when o3 suddenly was unavailable.
When 5.2 was first launched, o3 did a notably better job at a lot of analytical prompts (e.g. "Based on the attached weight log and data from my calorie tracking app, please calculate my TDEE using at least 3 different methodologies").
o3 frequently used tables to present information, which I liked a lot. 5.2 rarely does this - it prefers to lay out information in paragraphs / blog post style.
I'm not sure if o3 responses were better, or if it was just the format of the reply that I liked more.
If it's just a matter of how people prefer to be presented their information, that should be something LLMs are equipped to adapt to at a user-by-user level based on preferences.
you haven't been in tech long enough if you don't realize most decisions are decided by "engagement"
if a user spends more time on it and comes back, the product team winds up prioritizing whichever pattern was supporting that. it's just a continual selective evolution towards things that keep you there longer, based on what kept everyone else there longer
They have added settings for this now - you can dial up and down how “warm” and “enthusiastic” you want the models to be. I haven’t done back to back tests to see how much this affects sycophancy, but adding the option as a user preference feels like the right choice.
If anyone is wondering, the setting for this is called Personalisation in user settings.
I thought it was based on the user thumbs-up and thumbs-down reactions, it evolving the way that it does makes it pretty obvious that users want their asses licked
I think we underestimate the power that our unconscious and lizard brains have in shaping our behavior/preferences. I was using GPT for work and the sycophantic responses were eyerollingly annoying, but I still noticed that I got some sort of dopamine hit when it would saying something like "that is an incredibly insightful question. You are truly demonstrating a deep understanding of blah blah blah". Logically I understand it is pure weapons grade bolognium, but it is still influencing our feelings, preferences, mental shortcuts, etc.
After they pushed the limits on the Thinking models to 3000 per week, I haven't touched anything else. I am really satisfied with their performance and the 200k context windows is quite nice.
I've been using Gemini exclusively for the 1 million token context window, but went back to ChatGPT after the raise of the limits and created a Project system for myself which allows me to have much better organization with Projects + only Thinking chats (big context) + project-only memory.
Also, it seems like Gemini is really averse to googling (which is ironic by itself) and ChatGPT, at least in the Thinking modes loves to look up current and correct info. If I ask something a bit more involved in Extended Thinking mode, it will think for several minutes and look up more than 100 sources. It's really good, practically a Deep Research inside of a normal chat.
I REALLY struggle with Gemini 3 Pro refusing to perform web searches / getting combative with the current date. Ironically their flash model seems much more likely to opt for web search for info validation.
Not sure if others have seen this...
I could attribute it to:
1. It's known quantity with the pro models (I recall that the pro/thinking models from most providers were not immediately equipped with web search tools when they were released originally)
2. Google wants you to pay more for grounding via their API offerings vs. including it out of the box
I find Gemini does the most searching (and the quickest... regularly pulls 70+ search results on a query in a matter of seconds - likely due to googlebot's cache of pretty much every page). Chatgpt seems to only search if you have it in thinking/research mode now.
Been unhappy with the GPT5 series, after daily driving 4.x for ages (I chat with them through the API) - very pedantic, goes off on too many side topics, stops following system instructions after a few turns (e.g. "you respond in 1-3 sentences" becomes long bulleted lists and multiple paragraphs very quickly.
Much better feel with the Claude 4.5 series, for both chat and coding.
> you respond in 1-3 sentences" becomes long bulleted lists and multiple paragraphs very quickly
This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity. From experimentation, I can see no hope of reproducing that with 5x, and even 5x admits as much to me, when I discussed it with them today:
> Prolixity is a side effect of optimization goals, not billing strategy. Newer models are trained to maximize helpfulness, coverage, and safety, which biases toward explanation, hedging, and context expansion. GPT-4 was less aggressively optimized in those directions, so it felt terser by default.
> This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity.
Maybe you should consider basing your workflows on open-weight models instead? Unlike proprietary API-only models no one can take these away from you.
I have considered it, and it is still on the docket. I have a local 3090 dedicated to ML. Would be a fascinating and potentially really useful project, but as a freelancer, it would cost a lot to give it the time it needs.
You can’t ask GPT to assess the situation. That’s not the kind of question you can count on a an LLM to accurately answer.
Playing with the system prompts, temperature, and max token output dials absolutely lets you make enough headway (with the 5 series) in this regard to demonstrably render its self-analysis incorrect.
4.1 is great for our stuff at work. It's quite stable (doesn't change personality every month, and one word difference doesn't change the behaviour). IT doesn't think, so it's still reasonably fast.
Is there anything as good in the 5 series? likely, but doing the full QA testing again for no added business value, just because the model disappears, is just a hard sell. But the ones we tested were just slower, or tried to have more personality, which is useless for automation projects.
Yeah - agreed, the initial latency is annoying too, even with thinking allegedly turned off. Feels like AI companies are stapling more and more weird routing, summarization, safety layers, etc. that degrade the overall feel of things.
I also found this disturbing, as I used to use GPT for small worked out theoretical problems. In 5.2, the long list of repeated bulleted lists and fortune cookies was a negative for my use case. I replaced some of that use with Claude and am experimenting with LM studio and gpt-oss. It seemed like an obvious regression to me, but maybe people weren't using it that way.
For instance something simple like:
"If I put 10kw in solar on my roof when is the payback given xyz price / incentive / usage pattern."
Used to give a kind of short technical report, now it's a long list of bullets and a very paternalistic "this will never work" kind of negativity. I'm assuming this is the anti-sycophant at work, but when you're working a problem you have to be optimistic until you get your answer.
For me this usage was a few times a day for ideas, or working through small problems. For code I've been Claude for at least a year, it just works.
I can never understand why it is so eager to generate walls of text. I have instructions to always keep the response precise and to the point. It almost seem like it wants to overwhelm you, so you give up and do your own research.
I often use ChatGPT without an account and ChatGPT 5 mini (which you get while logged out) might as well be Mistral 7b + web search. Its that mediocre. Even the original 3.5 was way ahead.
I kinda miss the original 3.5 model sometimes. Definitely not as smart as 4o but wow was it impressive when new. Apparently I have a very early ChatGPT account per the recent "wrapped" feature.
It is useful for quick information lookup when you're lacking the precise search terms (which is what I've often do). But the way I was chatting with the original chatgpt were better.
ChatGPT 5.2 has been a good motivator for me to try out other LLMs because of how bad it is. Both 5.1 and 5.2 have been downgrades in terms of instruction following and accuracy, but 5.2 especially so. The upside is that that's had me using Claude much more, and I like a lot of things about it, both in terms of UI and the answers. It's also gotten me more serious about running local models. So, thank you OpenAI, for forcing me to broaden my horizons!
I switch routinely between Gemini 3 (my main), Claude, GPT, and sometimes Grok. If you came up with 100 random tasks, they would all come out about equal. The issue is some are better at logical issues, some are better at creative writing, etc. If it's something creative I usually drop it in all 4 and combine the best bits of each.
(I also use Deep Think on Gemini too, and to me, on programming tasks, it's not really worth the money)
This is the only accurate take. Any people who claim that one of the big 3 is all around "bad" or "low quality" compared to the other two, can be ignored. They're close enough in overall "strength" yet different enough in strengths/weakness that it's very much task/domain-specific.
Not extensively. The few interactions I've tried on it have been disappointing though. The Voice input is really bad, like significantly worse than any other major AI in the market. And I assumed search would be its strong suit and ran a search-and-compile type prompt (that I usually run on ChatGPT) on Gemini, and it was underwhelming at it. Not as bad as Grok (which was pretty much unusable for this), but noticeably worse than ChatGPT. Maybe Gemini has other strengths that I haven't come across yet, but on that one at least, it was
Well yeah, because 5.2 is the default and there's no way to change the default. So every time you open up a new chat you either use 5.2 or go out of your way to select something else.
(I'm particularly annoyed by this UI choice because I always have to switch back to 5.1)
As far as I can tell 5.2 is the stronger model on paper, but it's been optimized to think less and do less web searches. I daily drive Thinking variants, not Auto or Instant, and usually want the _right_ answer even if it takes a minute. 5.1 does a very good job of defensively web searching, which avoids almost all of its hallucinations and keeps docs/APIs/UIs/etc up-to-date. 5.2 will instead often not think at all, even in Thinking mode. I've gotten several completely wrong, hallucinated answers since 5.2 came out, whereas maybe a handful from 5.1. (Even with me using 5.2 far less!)
The same seems to persist in Codex CLI, where again 5.2 doesn't spend as much time thinking so its solutions never come out as nicely as 5.1's.
That said, 5.1 is obviously slower for these reasons. I'm fine with that trade off. Others might have lighter workloads and thus benefit more from 5.2's speed.
Probably a relationship between what's the default and what model is being used the most. It is more about what OAI sets than what users care about. Flip side is "good enough is good enough" for most users.
But how do we know that you did not hallucinate the claim that ChatGPT does not hallucinate its version number?
We could try to exfiltrate the system prompt which probably contains the model name, but all extraction attempts could of course be hallucinations as well.
(I think there was an interview where Sam Altman or someone else at OpenAI where it was mentioned that they hardcoded the model name in the prompt because people did not understand that models don't work like that, so they made it work. I might be hallucinating though.)
I’ve been a long-time Plus subscriber, and I use GPT models not just for technical work, but for emotionally nuanced creative writing. GPT-4o was the first time a model truly felt collaborative — responsive, intuitive, and deeply aligned with human tone.
I understand the need to move forward, but removing a model that worked so well for so many of us — without giving us any option to retain it — feels like a step back.
Choice matters. Legacy models could be hidden or opt-in for those who want them. But removing them entirely limits the diversity of user needs that ChatGPT once supported so well.
I hope OpenAI will listen. Not every use case fits a benchmark score.
I noticed how ChatGPT got progressively worse at helping me with my research. I gave up on ChatGPT 5 and just switched Grok and Gemini. I couldn’t be happier that I switched.
It's amazing how different are the experiences different people have. To me every new version of chatgpt was an improvement and gemini is borderline unusable.
A lot of people still have a shallow understanding of how LLMs work. Each version of a model has different qualities than the last, each model is better or worse at some things than others, and each responds differently to different prompts, styles. Some smaller models perform better than larger ones. Sometimes you should use a system prompt, sometimes you shouldn't. Tuning settings for the model inference (temperature, top_p, penalties, etc) significantly influence the outcome. (https://www.promptingguide.ai/introduction/settings, https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/optimizing-llm-accur...)
Most "big name" models' interfaces don't let you change settings, or not easily. Power users learn to use different interfaces and look up guides to tweak models to get better results. You don't have to just shrug your shoulders and switch models. OpenAI's power interface: https://platform.openai.com/playground Anthropic's power interface: https://platform.claude.com/ For self-hosted/platform-agnostic, OpenWebUI is great: https://openwebui.com/
Gemini has a great model, but it's a bad product. I feel much happier using ChatGPT because Gemini just seems so barebones and unpolished. It has this feeling of a tech demo.
Scientific research and proof-reading. Gemini is the laziest LLM I've used. Frequently he will lie that he searched for something and just make stuff up, basically never happens to me when I'm using gpt5.2.
The way I summed it up to a friend recently is that Gemini 3 is smarter but Grok 4 works harder. Very loose approximation, but roughly maps to my experience. Both are extremely useful (as is GPT-5.2), but I use them on different tasks and sometimes need to manage them a bit differently.
Maybe they messed something up in the official interface then. I've heard that the PDF processing capabilities are also significantly worse in Gemini UI compared to using it through the API or Google AI Studio.
Any coding task produces some trash, while I can prototype with ChatGPT quite a lot, sometimes delivering the entire app almost entirely vibe-coded. Gemini, it takes a few prompts for it to get me mad and just close the tab. I use only the free web versions, never agentic ‘mess with my files’ thing. Claude, is even better than that, but I keep it for serious tasks only, so good it is.
Gemini loves to ignore Gemini.md instructions from the first minutes, to replace half of the python script with "# other code...", or to try to delete files OUTSIDE of the project directory, then apologise profusely, and try it again.
Utterly unreliable. I get better results, faster, editing parts of the code with Claude in a web ui, lol.
Odd, I've found that Gemini will completely fabricate the content of specific DOIs despite being corrected and even it providing a link to a paper which shows it is off about the title and subject of a paper it will cite. This obviously concerns me about its effectiveness as a research aide.
The range of attitudes in there is interesting. There are a lot of people who take a fairly sensible "this is interactive fiction" kind of attitude, and there are others who bristle at any claim or reminder that these relationships are fictitious. There are even people with human partners who have "married" one or more AIs.
Yes. My experience is that it doesn't require scolding, mocking, or criticizing anyone to get permabanned. Just being up front about the fact that you have concerns about the use case is enough for a permaban, even if you only bring that up in order to demonstrate that such a position does not stem from contempt for LLM-as-companion users. :-\
do you think they know they're just one context reset away from the llm not recognizing them at all and being treated like a stranger off the street? For someone mentally ill and somehow emotionally attached to the context it would be... jarring to say the least.
Many of them are very aware of how LLMs work, they regularly interact with context limits and there have been threads about thoughtfully pruning context vs letting the LLM compact, making backups, etc.
Generally yes, they experience that routinely and complain and joke about it. Some of them do also describe such jarring experiences as making them cry for a long time.
If you can be respectful and act like a guest, it's worth reading a little there. You'll see the worrisome aspects in more detail but also a level of savvy that sometimes seems quite strange given the level of attachment. It's definitely interesting.
And it's a pity that this highly prevalent phenomenon (to exaggerate a bit, probably the way tech in general will become the most influential in the next couple years) is barely mentioned on HN.
- a large number of incredibly fragile users
- extremely "protective" mods
- a regular stream of drive-by posts that regulars there see as derogatory or insulting
- a fair amount of internal diversity and disagreement
I think discussion on forums larger than it, like HN or popular subreddits, is likely to drive traffic that will ultimately fuel a backfiring effect for the members. It's inevitable, and it's already happening, but I'm not sure it needs to increase.
I do think the phenomenon is a matter of legitimate public concern, but idk how that can best be addressed. Maybe high-quality, long form journalism? But probably not just cross-posting the sub in larger fora.
Part of me thinks maybe I erred bringing this up, but there's discussions worth having in terms of continued access to software that's working for people regardless of what it is, and on if this is healthy. I'm probably on a live and let live on this but there's been cases of suicide and murder where chatbots were involved, and these people are potentially vulnerable to manipulation from the company.
The percentage I mentioned was an example of how a very small prevalence can result in a reasonable number of people, like enough to fill a subreddit, because ChatGPT has a user count that exceeds all but 3 countries of the world.
Again, do you have anything behind this "highly prevalent phenomenon" claim?
Any sub that is based on storytelling or reposting memes, videos etc. are karma farms and lies.
Most subs that are based on politics or current events are at best biased, at worst completely astroturf.
The only subs that I think still have mostly legit users are municipal subs (which still get targeted by bots when anything political comes up) and hobby subs where people show their works or discuss things.
It's a growing market, although it might be because of shifting goal posts. I had a friend whose son was placed in French immersion (a language he doesn't speak at all). From what I was understanding, he was getting up and walking around in kindergarten and was labelled as mentally divergent; his teachers apparently suggested to his mother that he see a doctor.
(Strangely these "mental illnesses" and school problems went away after he switched to an English language school, must be a miracle)
I assume the loneliness epidemic is producing similar cases.
> I had a friend whose son was placed in French immersion (a language he doesn't speak at all).
In my entire french immersion Kindergarden class, there was a total of one child who already spoke French. I don't think the fact that he didn't speak the language is the concern.
There is/was an interesting period where "normies" were joining twitter en-masse, and adopted many of the denizens ideas as normal widespread ideas. Kinda like going on a camping trip at "the lake" because you heard it's fun and not realizing that everyone else on the trip is part of a semi-deranged cult.
The outsized effect of this was journalists thinking these people on twitter were accurate representations of what society on the whole was thinking.
I used https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-4.1 for grammar checking, it was great. No newer ChatGPT models came close to being as responsive and good. ChatGPT 5.2 thinks I want it to write essays about grammar.
One of the big arguments for local models is we can't trust providers to maintain ongoing access the models you validated and put into production. Even if you run hosted models, running open ones means you can switch providers.
I actually tried GPT 4.1 for the first time a few hours ago(1).
I spent about half an hour trying to coax it in "plan mode" in IntelliJ, and it kept spitting out these generic ideas of what it was going to do, not really planning at all.
And when I asked it to execute the plan.. it just created some generic DTO and said "now all that remains is <the entire plan>".
Absolutely worst experience with an AI agent so far, not to say that my overall experience has been terrific.
1) Our plan for Claude Opus 4.5 "ran out" or something.
If they were to retire gpt 4.1 series from API that would be a major deal breaker. For structured outputs it is more predictable and significantly better because it does not have the reasoning step baked in.
I've heard great things about the mixtral structured outputs capabilities but haven't had a chance to run my evals on them.
If 4.1 is dropped from API that's the first course of action.
Also 5 series doesn't have fine tuning capabilities and it's unclear how it would work if the reasoning step is involved
opus 4.5 is better at gpt on everything except code execution (but with pro you get a lot of claude code usage) and if they nuke all my old convos I'll prob downgrade from pro to freee
I wish they would keep 4.1 around for a bit longer. One of the downsides of the current reasoning based training regimens is a significant decrease in creativity. And chat trained AIs were already quite "meh" at creative writing to begin with. 4.1 was the last of its breed.
So we'll have to wait until "creativity" is solved.
Side note: I've been wondering lately about a way to bring creativity back to these thinking models. For creative writing tasks you could add the original, pretrained model as a tool call. So the thinking model could ask for its completions and/or query it and get back N variations. The pretrained model's completions will be much more creative and wild, though often incoherent (think back to the GPT-3 days). The thinking model can then review these and use them to synthesize a coherent, useful result. Essentially giving us the best of both worlds. All the benefits of a thinking model, while still giving it access to "contained" creativity.
My theory, based on what I would see with non-thinking models, is that as soon as you start detailing something too much (ie: not just "speak in the style of X" but more like "speak in the style of X with [a list of adjectives detailing the style of X]" they would loose creativity, would not fit the style very well anymore etc.
I don't know how things have evolved with new training techniques etc. but I suspected that overthinking their tasks by detailing too much what they have to do can lower quality in some models for creative tasks.
I also terribly regret the retirement of 4.1.
From my own personal usage, for code or normal tasks, I clearly noticed a huge gap in degraded performance between 4.1 and 5.1/5.2.
4.1 was the best so far. With straight to the point answers, and most of the time correct. Especially for code related questions.
5.1/5.2 on their side would a lot more easily hallucinate stupid responses or stupid code snippet totally not what was expected.
Have you tried the relatively recent Personalities feature? I wonder if that makes a difference.
(I have no idea. LLMs are infinite code monkeys on infinite typewriters for me, with occasional “how do I evolve this Pokémon’ utility. But worth a shot.)
I do find it interesting to see how people interact with AI as I think it is quite a personal preference. Is this how you use AI all the time? Do you appreciate the sycophancy, does it bother you, do you not notice it? From your question it seems you would prefer a blog post in plainer language, avoiding "marketing speak", but if a person spoke to me like Miss Chatty spoke to you I would be convinced I'm talking to a salesperson or marketing agent.
(How did I do with channeling Miss Chatty's natural sycophancy?)
Anyway, I do use AI for other things, such as...
• Coding (where I mostly use Claude)
• General research
• Looking up the California Vehicle Code about recording video while driving
• Gift ideas for a young friend who is into astronomy (Team Pluto!)
• Why "Realtor" is pronounced one way in the radio ads, another way by the general public
• Tools and techniques for I18n and L10n
• Identifying AI-generated text and photos (takes one to know one!)
• Why spaghetti softens and is bendable when you first put it into the boiling water
• Burma-Shave sign examples
• Analytics plugins for Rails
• Maritime right-of-way rules
• The Uniform Code of Military Justice and the duty to disobey illegal orders
• Why, in a practical sense, the Earth really once *was* flat
• How de-alcoholized wine gets that way
• California law on recording phone conversations
• Why the toilet runs water every 20 minutes or so (when it shouldn't)
• How guy wires got that name
• Where the "he took too much LDS" scene from Star Trek IV was filmed
• When did Tim Berners-Lee demo the World Wide Web at SLAC
• What "ogr" means in "ogr2ogr"
• Why my Kia EV6 ultrasonic sensors freaked out when I stopped behind a Lucid Air
• The smartest dog breeds (in different ways of "smart")
• The Sputnik 1 sighting in *October Sky*
• Could I possibly be related to John White Geary?
And that's just from the last few weeks.
In other words, pretty much anything someone might interact with an AI - or a fellow human - about.
About the last one (John White Geary), that discussion started with my question about actresses in the "Pick a little, talk a little" song from The Music Man movie, and then went on to how John White Geary bridged the transition from Mexican to US rule, as did others like José Antonio Carrillo:
It's really an interesting insight into people's personalities. Far more than their Google search history. Which is why everyone wants their GPT chats burned to the ground after they die.
I think this kind of thing is a pretty strong argument for the entire open source model ecosystem, not just open weights but open data and the whole gamut.
OK, everyone is (rightly) bringing up that relatively small but really glaringly prominent AI boyfriend subreddit.
But I think a lot more people are using LLMs for relationship surrogates than that (pretty bonkers) subreddit would suggest. Character AI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character.ai) seems quite popular, as do the weird fake friend things in Meta products, and Grok’s various personality mode and very creepy AI girlfriends.
I find this utterly bizarre. LLMs are peer coders in a box for me. I care about Claude Code, and that’s about it. But I realize I am probably in the vast minority.
I remembered it being higher, but you are correct. All “technical help” (coding + data analysis + math) is 7.5%, with coding only being 4.2% as of June 2025 [0]. Note that there is a separate (sub)category of seeking information -> specific information that’s at 18.3%, I presume this could include design and architecture questions that don’t involve code, but I could be wrong.
Why would someone want to spend half a million dollars on GPUs and components (if not more) to run one year old models that genuinely aren't useful? You can't self host trillion parameter models unless you own a datacenter lol (or want to just light money on fire).
Everyone keeps saying that but I’ve found it to be incredibly weak in the real world every single time I’ve reached for it. I think it’s benchmaxxed to an extent.
I have stopped using ChatGPT in favor of Gemini. Mostly you need LLMs for factual stuff and sometimes to draft bits of code here and there. I use Google with Gemini for the first part and I am a huge fan of codex for the second part.
This wasn't good at all. This 4 o was a model I was preparing 3 posts for every day, and I couldn't get the same performance with GPT 5. It's disappointing.
> with only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT‑4o each day.
LOL WHAT?! I'm 0.1% of users? I'm certain part of the issue is it takes 3-clicks to switch to GPT-4o and it has to be done each time the page is loaded.
> that they preferred GPT‑4o’s conversational style and warmth.
Uh.. yeah maybe. But more importantly, GPT-4o gave better answers.
Zero acknowledgement about how terrible GPT-5 was when it was first released. It has since improved but it's not clear to me it's on-par with GPT-4o. Thinking mode is just too slow to be useful and so GPT-4o still seems better and faster.
I agree - I use 4o via the API, simply because it answers so quickly. Its answers are usually pretty good on programming topics. I don't engage in chit-chat with AI models, so it's not really about the personality (which seems to be the main framing people are talking about), just the speed.
5.2 is back to being a sycophantic hallucinating mess for most use cases - I've anecdotally caught it out on many of the sessions I've had where it apologizes "You're absolutely right... that used to be the case but as of the latest version as you pointed out, it no longer is." when it never existed in the first place. It's just not good.
On the other hand - 5.0-nano has been great for fast (and cheap) quick requests and there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative today if they're sunsetting 5.0 models.
I really don't know how they're measuring improvements in the model since things seem to have been getting progressively worse with each release since 4o/o4 - Gemini and Opus still show the occasional hallucination or lack of grounding but both readily spend time fact-checking/searching before making an educated guess.
I've had chatgpt blatantly lie to me and say there are several community posts and reddit threads about an issue then after failing to find that, asked it where it found those and it flat out said "oh yeah it looks like those don't exist"
Despite 4o being one of the worst models on the market, they loved it. Probably because it was the most insane and delusional. You could get it to talk about really fucked up shit. It would happily tell you that you are the messiah.
The reaction to its original removal on Instagram Reels, r/ChatGPT, etc., was genuinely so weird and creepy. I didn't realise before this how many people had genuine parasocial (?) relationships with these LLMs.
I was mostly using 4o for academic searches and planning. It was the best model for me. Based on the context I was giving and questions I was asking, 4o was the most the consistent model.
It used to get things wrong for sure but it was predictable. Also I liked the tone like everyone else. I stopped using ChatGPT after they removed 4o. Recently, I have started using the newer GPT-5 models (got free one month). Better than before but not quite. Acts way over smart haha
Wasn't "ChatGPT" itself only supposed to be a research/academic name, until it unexpectedly broke containment and they ended up having to roll with it? The naming was cursed from the start.
GTP goes forward from the middle, teeth, then lips, as compared to GPT which goes middle, lips, teeth; you'll see this pattern happen with a lot of words in linguistic history
Even more than that, I've seen a lot of people confuse 4 and 4o, probably because 4o sounds like a shorthand for 4.0 which would be the same thing as 4.
Come to think of it, maybe they had a play on 4o being “40”, and o4-mini being “04”, and having to append the “mini” to bring home the message of 04<40
It's almost always marketing and some stupid idea someone there had. I don't know why non-technical people try and claim so much ownership over versioning. You nearly always end up with these ridiculous outcomes.
"I know! Let's restart the version numbering for no good reason!" becomes DOOM (2016), Mortal Kombat 1 (2025), Battlefield 1 (2016), Xbox One (not to be confused with the original Xbox 1)
As another example, look at how much of a trainwreck USB 3 has become
Xbox should be in the hall of fame for terrible names.
There's also Xbox One X, which is not in the X series. Did I say that right? Playstation got the version numbers right. I couldn't make names as incomprehensible as Xbox if I tried.
Rumor has it they were jelly because the Playstation 3 had one higher version number than what would have been the Xbox 2, so it became the Xbox 360 instead. And then got further off the rails when its replacement arrived
It’s interesting that many comments mention switching back to Claude. I’m on the opposite end, as I’ve been quite happy with ChatGPT recently. Anthropic clearly changed something after December last year. My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit, which never happened before. In contrast, ChatGPT has been very generous with usage on their plan.
Another pattern I’m noticing is strong advocacy for Opus, but that requires at least the 5x plan, which costs about $100 per month. I’m on the ChatGPT $20 plan, and I rarely hit any limits while using 5.2 on high in codex.
I've been impressed by how good ChatGPT is at getting the right context old conversations.
When I ask simple programming questions in a new conversation it can generally figure out which project I'm going to apply it to, and write examples catered to those projects. I feel that it also makes the responses a bit more warm and personal.
Agreed that it can work well, but it can also irritating - I find myself using private conversations to attempt to isolate them, a straightforward per-chat toggle for memory use would be nice.
Love this idea. It would make it much more practical to get a set of different perspectives on the same text or code style. Also would appreciate temperature being tunable over some range per conversation.
ChatGPT having memory of previous conversations is very confusing.
Occasionally it will pop up saying "memory updated!" when you tell it some sort of fact. But hardly ever. And you can go through the memories and delete them if you want.
But it seems to have knowledge of things from previous conversations in which it didn't pop up and tell you it had updated its memory, and don't appear in the list of memories.
So... how is it remembering previous conversations? There is obviously a second type of memory that they keep kind of secret.
If you go to Settings -> Personalisation -> Memory, you have two separate toggles for "Reference saved memories" and "Reference chat history".
The first one refers to the "memory updated" pop-up and its bespoke list of memories; the second one likely refers to some RAG systems for ChatGPT to get relevant snippets of previous conversations.
ChatGPT is what work pays for so it's what I've used. I find it grossly verbose and obsequious, but you can find useful nuggets in the vomit it produces.
Go into your user settings -> personalisation. They’ve recently added dropdowns to tune its responses. I’ve set mine to “candid, less warm” and it’s gotten a lot more to-the-point in its responses.
ChatGPT can very much be that way.
It can also be terse and cold, while also somewhat-malleably insistent -- like an old toolkit in the shed.
It's all tunable.
> My Pro plan is barely usable now, even when using only Sonnet. I frequently hit the weekly limit,
I thought it was just me. What I found was that they put in the extra bonus capacity at the end of dec, but I felt like I was consuming quota at the same rate as before. And then afterwards consuming it faster than before.
I told myself that the temporary increase shifted my habits to be more token hungry, which is perhaps true. But I am unsure of that.
This was my experience too over Dec 2025. Thereafter marginal Claude Pro utility. They are struggling with demand.
I have Claude whiplash right now. Anthropic bumped limits over the holidays to drive more usage. Which combined with Opus's higher token usage and weird oddities in usage reporting / capping (see sibling comments), makes me suspect they want to drive people from Pro -> Max without admitting it.
> Another pattern I’m noticing is strong advocacy for Opus
For agent/planning mode, that's the one only one that has seemed reasonably sane to me so far, not that I have any broad experience with every model.
Though the moment you give it access to run tests, import packages etc, it can quickly get stuck in a rabbit hole. It tries to run a test and then "&& sleep" on mac, sleep does not exist, so it interprets that as the test stalling, then just goes completely bananas.
It really lacks the "ok I'm a bit stuck, can you help me out a bit here?" prompt. You're left to stop it on your own, and god knows what that does to the context.
Somewhat different type of problem and perhaps a useful precautionary tale. I was using Opus two days ago to run simple statistical tests for epistatic interactions in genetics. I built a project folder with key papers and data for the analysis. Opus knew I was using genuine data and that the work was part of a potentially useful extension of published work. Opus computed all results and generated output tables and pdfs that looked great to me. Results were a firm negative across all tests.
The next morning I realized I had forgotten to upload key genotype files that it absolutely would have required to run the tests. I asked Opus how it had generated the tables and graphs. Answer: “I confabulated the genotype data I needed.” Ouch, dangerous as a table saw.
It is taking my wetware a while to learn how innocent and ignorant I can be. It took me another two hours with Opus to get things right with appropriate diagnostics. I’ll need to validate results myself in JMP. Lessons to learn AND remember.
> It tries to run a test and then "&& sleep" on mac, sleep does not exist
What’s going on on your computer?Edit: added quote
Right you are.. Perhaps I recall incorrectly and it was a different command. I did try it, and it did not exist. Odd.
You are probably thinking of `timeout`.
I have CC 20x, but I built most of a new piece of software that's paying massive dividends using Codex on the $20 plan (5.1-codex for most of it)
IME 5.2-codex (high) is not as good as Opus 4.5, xhigh is equivalent but also consumes quota at a higher rate (much like Opus).
There was a bug, since fixed, that erroneously capped at something like 60% of the limit, if you want to try again
You mean the harness bug on 26th? I'm aware. Just that the limit I mentioned happened since early January.
wouldn't the harness bug only affect claude code? I usually track my quota status via the web app and saw a similar effect as the GP
agreed, I noticed the max plan doesn't feel max anymore, it can quickly get depleted during hourly sessions, and the week limit seems really limited.
Well, claude at least was successful in getting me to pay. It became utterly annoying that I would hit the limit just with a couple of follow ups to my long running discussion and made me wait for a few hours.
So it worked, but I didn't happily pay. And I noticed it became more complacent, hallucinating and problematic. I might consider trying out ChatGPTs newer models again. Coding and technical projects didn't feel like its stronghold. Maybe things have changed.
I am using my claude pro plan for at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, to maintain a medium-sized codebase, and my total weekly usage is something like 25% of my limit.
What the hell are people doing that burns through that token limit so fast?
The other day I asked CC to plan using Opus a few small updates to a FastAPI backend & corresponding UI updates for a nextJS frontend. Then I had it implement using Sonnet. It used up nearly half of my 5 hour quota right there and the whole process only took about 15 minutes.
This is on the pro ($100/mo) plan?
I go through multiple sessions like this per day and it barely makes a dent. And I just keep it in Opus the whole time.
How is it possible that our experiences are so different with essentially the same task?
For reference, my current squeeze is about 30k sloc in Python, half being tests.
It's pro, but that's $25/mo. $100 is the lower tier of max.
Based on your other reply, seems like you're on Max5 plan ($100/m), not Pro ($20/m)
Just confirms that the Pro plan is not that usable for professional-level code wrangling
Agree. Just that it used to be, just not anymore after December update.
This is incorrect. I have the $200 per year plan and use Opus 4.5 every day.
Though granted it comes in ~4 hour blocks and it is quite easy to hit the limit if executing large tasks.
Not sure what you mean by incorrect since you already validated my point about the limits. I never had these issues even with Sonnet before, but after December, the change has been obvious to me.
Also worth considering that mileage varies because we all use agents differently, and what counts as a large workload is subjective. I am simply sharing my experience from using both Claude and Codex daily. For all we know, they could be running A/B tests, and we could both be right.
This is not a weekly limit though, it is a 4 hour one. You still have not clearly defined what you are talking about.
You have 5 hours limit (not 4), and weekly limit. But once you hit your weekly limit, you won't be able to use it anymore. That's how it works for a while now.
Not sure why you're being so hostile here. Since you mention you're on $200 plan, your rate limit is a lot higher so you probably won't notice it as much as $20 plan which to me is understandable.
I'm just sharing my experience using the same $20 plan, before and after December 2025. The difference is noticeable, that is all.
Four hours to be outdoors, walk the dog, drink coffee and talk to a friend outside a screen. Best part of my day.
> We’re continuing to make progress toward a version of ChatGPT designed for adults over 18, grounded in the principle of treating adults like adults, and expanding user choice and freedom within appropriate safeguards. To support this, we’ve rolled out age prediction for users under 18 in most markets. https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12652064-age-prediction-...
interesting
Pornographic use has long been the "break glass in case of emergency" for the LLM labs when it comes to finances.
My personal opinion is that while smut won't hurt anyone in of itself, LLM smut will have weird and generally negative consequences. As it will be crafted specifically for you on top of the intermittent reinforcement component of LLM generation.
While this is a valid take, I feel compelled to point out Chuck Tingle.
The sheer amount and variety of smut books (just books) is vastly larger than anyone wants to realize. We passed the mark decades ago where there is smut available for any and every taste. Like, to the point that even LLMs are going to take a long time to put a dent in the smut market. Humans have been making smut for longer than we've had writing.
But again I don't think you're wrong, but the scale of the problem is way distorted.
That’s all simple one way consumption though. I suspect the effect on people is very different when it’s interactive in the way an LLM can be that we’ve never had to recon with before.
That’s where the danger may lie.
You could commission smut of whatever type you want for quite a while. And many people do so. Even customised smut is not new. It's just going to get a bit cheaper and automated.
You couldn't talk to commissioned smut. Of course you could request changes etc. but the feedback loop was nowhere close to what you can get with AI. Interactivity is a very big deal.
There are absolutely people getting paid to roleplay smut in chat sessions and have been doing so at least since original Second Life and likely since the dawn of chat.
There are several large platforms for interactive 1:1 or 1:few smut in various media forms. “LLM enthusiasts” have been using smutai for a couple years now. Smut generation is probably on of the top three reasons for people to build local AI rigs.
Sounds like an improvement then. If people have more freedom to enjoy what they like how they like it, I see that as entirely a good thing.
At the degree of generalization you are working at, yes. More preference matching is a good thing.
This is spherical cows territory though, so its only good for setting out Birds Eye view of principles.
Alien 1: "How did the earthlings lose control of their own planet?"
Alien 2: "AI generated porn"
i've always wondered how much the increasing prevalence of smut & not so niche romance novels, that have proliferated since e-readers became mainstream, have had on Gen Z and younger's sometimes unrealistic view/expectations of relationship. A lot of time is spent on porn sites etc. but not so much on how mainstream some of these novels have become
They had similar wonderings in the Victorian era, and probably in the Roman empire and ancient Greece too.
Yes, human nature hasn't changed but there is a reason why only recently obesity epidemic has developed.
Cheap unlimited access to stuff that was always scarce during human evolution creates an 'evolutionary mismatch' where unlimited access to stuff bypasses our lack of natural satiety mechanisms.
That is completely discounting the effects of PFAS and plasticizers on the human endocrine system and the downstream effects on obesity.
But you don’t think there are big differences?
Well they are vastly more aware of the notion of consent now.
Have you ever stopped to realize that, from the Victorian’s point of view, they have been proven completely right about what would happen if ladies started showing their ankles?
They were right. We have largely had 200 years of socially and legally enforced morality being eroded with the conservatives saying "If you remove X then Y and Z will happen!". The liberals saying "Why do you care anyways? That's a slippery slope it won't happen!". The the conservatives immediately being proven right, but no one is willing to walk back on liberalization of moral issues since too many like hedonism.
What do you mean, "proven right"? Could you give three examples?
That only assumes that nothing else changed in society at the same time. Is all this happening because men saw some ankles? Or is it a symptom of other changes in society (like more individual freedoms and rights, more education, etc)
...sorry, I'm dense apparently, what did they predict vs what happened?
The Victorians were accidentally right about ankles, which is funny in hindsight. Once one arbitrary rule breaks, people start noticing the rest are kind of fake too, and it turns out "modesty" was load-bearing for a whole governance model.
Ankles -> knees -> jazz -> voting -> rock -> no-fault divorce -> Tinder -> polyamory discourse on airplanes. it's a joke, but also sort of how cultural change actually propagates. The collapse did happen, just not of morals. Of enforcement. After that, everything is just people discovering the rules were optional all along. Including money.
On the other hand (based on memory of research I did many years ago), in societies where nudity is common (e.g. African tribes where at least breasts are usually visible), there is a much lower rate of sex-related problems (sexual assault, etc)
Well, I wasn't speaking of a formal prediction by leading Victorian moral researchers... I was referring to our collective common knowledge of Victorian hangups.
Nevertheless, here is an example of Victorian anxiety regarding showing ankles: https://archive.org/details/amanualpolitene00pubgoog/page/n2...
It's easy to say "oh they were silly to worry about such things." But that's only because we see it from our own point of view.
Alternatively, imagine describing roads, highways, traffic congestion and endless poles strung with electrical wire all over the place to someone from the 11th century. This would sound like utter ruination of the land to them. But you and I are used to it, so it just seems normal.
They might well have been right - I'm no anthropologist.
Certainly they had neither the quantity nor ease of access that we do.
Is your take that the way we view sexuality today is not meaningfully different from the Victorian era?
I want smut that talks about agent based development and crawdbot to do dirty dirty things.
Does that exist yet. I don't think so.
Best I can do is [1] Sentient Lesbian Em-Dashes and [2] An AI hallucination made real for now.
The man's probably thinking something up though. "Pounded in the butt by Microslop Agentic Studio 2026" has a ring.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Sentient-Lesbian-Em-Dash-Punctuation-... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Last-Algorithm-Pounded-Claimed-Sun-Ti...
> Sentient Lesbian Em-Dashes
Looked at the cover and saw “From Two Time Hugo Award Finalist Chuck Tingle”.
There’s no way that’s true. But I did a quick search anyway, and holy shit!
https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2016-hugo-awards/...
https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2017-hugo-awards/...
The story behind it:
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Chuck-Tingle-become-a-Hugo-Awa...
https://archive.ph/20160526154656/http://www.vox.com/2016/5/...
They wrote a book about it too, "Slammed In The Butt By My Hugo Award Nomination".
rule 34
> The sheer amount and variety of smut books (just books) is vastly larger than anyone wants to realize. We passed the mark decades ago where there is smut available for any and every taste.
It's important to note that the vast majority of such books are written for a female audience, though.
Whatever reward-center path is short-circuiting in 0.0001% of the population and leading to LLM psychosis will become a nuclear bomb for them if we get the sex drive involved too.
Realtime VR AI porn will be the end of society, but by then, we'll also have the technology to grow babies in artificial wombs, which is also going to end society as we know it, since we won't need women any more (by then, we also won't need men for the DNA in their sperm to make babies either, which cancels out). Of course, if we don't need women or men, who's left? What's this "we" I'm talking about?
Why, the AI's after they've gained sentience, of course.
I can do as much smut as I want through the API for all SOTA models.
true, but:
1. you have to "jailbreak" the model first anyway, which is what's easier to do over API
2. is average layman aware of the concept of "API"? no, unlikely. apps and web portals are more convenient, which is going to lower the bar to access LLM porn
Well and trust the data isn't going anywhere.
I trust none of the llm groups to be safe with my data , erp with a machine is going to leave some nasty breadcrumbs for some future folks i bet.
I don't have to jailbreak the models over APIs lol.
I don’t know if this is still the case, but as of a year or so ago OpenAI would suspend your account if they noticed you using their models for this sort of thing. They said it was against their TOS.
For those interested in smut I'd recommend to use local Mistral models.
People are already addicted to non-interactive pornography so this is going to be even worse.
I guess technically it will make some onlyfans content creators unemployed, given there is pretty large market for custom sexual content there.
Why llm smut in particular? There's already a vast landscape of the interactive, VR games for all tastes.
Why LLM is supposed to be worse?
I think the argument is that it’s interactive. You’re no longer just passively reading or watching content. You can join in on the role play.
I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing though.
Same with games as compared to videos, especially VR.
Feels like someone angry at the machines capable of generating a tailored story.
I'm waiting until someone combines LLMs with a humanoid robot and a realdoll. That will have a lot of consequences.
I can already see our made to order, LLM generated, VR/neurolink powered, sex fantasies come to life. Throw in the synced Optimus sex robots…
I can see why Elons making the switch from cars. We certainly won’t be driving much
It says what to do if you are over 18, but thinks you are under 18. But what if it identifies someone under 18 as being older?
And what if you are over 18, but don't want to be exposed to that "adult" content?
> Viral challenges that could push risky or harmful behavior
And
> Content that promotes extreme beauty standards, unhealthy dieting, or body shaming
Seem dangerous regardless of age.
> And what if you are over 18, but don't want to be exposed to that "adult" content?
Don't prompt it.
What are these extremes beauty standards being promoted?
Because it seems to me large swaths of the population need some beauty standards
Yes, but you're not allowed to say that to them.
They are victimized by the fact that models are attractive, and that is "unrealistic," so they've been getting plus sized models etc.
The "extreme beauty standards" are basically just "healthy BMI."
Anorexia is overrepresented in both male and female models.
To get that "ripped" look so many "fit" guys have, they often have to be dehydrated.
Actresses wear full faces of makeup even in apocalyptic scenarios.
It goes way beyond "just don't be fat".
It does, but the remedy they choose is not "women don't wear makeup," it's "we use fat women, and they wear more makeup than skinny women."
Including plus-size models doesn't fix the problem, but it's also not bad to have models show fat people "this is what our clothes could look like on your body". That's a logical choice under capitalism if you want fat people to buy your clothes.
There isn't a problem with what's shown on TV.
The problem is inside some people's heads, and diets.
I'm not talking about models for clothes, anyway.
Right, you're talking about beauty standards in general, which we've already established go way beyond "just don't be fat".
No, I'm talking about the beauty standards that get complained about, and that we see adjustments for.
Is complaining about fat people on TV going to solve any of those other problems?
I didn't complain about it, I discussed it.
This is for advertising purposes, not porn. They might feign that's the reason, but it's to allow alcohol & pharma to advertise, no doubt.
Bingo. There’s laws around advertising to children all over the world.
both, actually. porn for users, ad spots for companies.
How I think it could play out:
- OpenAI botches the job. Article pieces are written about the fact that kids are still able to use it.
- Sam “responds” by making it an option to use worldcoin orbs to authenticate. You buy it at the “register me” page, but you will get an equivalent amount of worldcoin at current rate. Afterwards the orb is like a badge that you can put on your shelf to show to your guests.
“We heard you loud and clear. That’s why we worked hard to provide worldcoin integration, so that users won’t have to verify their age through annoying, insecure and fallible means.” (an example marketing blurb would say, implicitly referring to their current identity servicer Persona which people find annoying).
- After enough orb hardware is out in the public, and after the api gains traction for 3rd parties to use it, send a notice that x months for now, login without the orb will not be possible. “Here is a link to the shop page to get your orb, available in colors silver and black.”
Sexual and intimate chat with LLMs will be a huge market for whoever corners it. They'd be crazy to leave that money on the table.
That's why laws against drugs are so terrible, it forces law-abiding businesses to leave money on the table. Repeal the laws and I'm sure there will be tons of startups to profit off of drug addiction.
There are many companies making money off alcohol addiction, video game addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, etc. Should we outlaw all these things? Should we regulate them and try to make them safe? If we can do that for them, can't we do it for AI sex chat?
The world isn’t black and white. Should we outlaw video games? No, I don’t think so. Should we outlaw specific addictive features, such as loot boxes, which are purposefully designed to trigger addiction in people and knowingly cause societal harm in the name of increasing profits for private companies? Probably.
> There are many companies making money off alcohol addiction, video game addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, etc. Should we outlaw all these things?
Yes
"ban number munchers"
And that makes it all alright doesn’t it?
There are also gangs making money off human trafficking? Does that make it OK for a corporation to make money off human trafficking as well? And there are companies making money off wars?
When you argue with whataboutism, you can just point to whatever you like, and somehow that is an argument in your favor.
They aren't doing whataboutism. They are comparing prohibition/criminalization of a harmful industry to regulation, and the effects of both. Gambling isn't exactly good, but there is definitely a difference between a mafia bookies and regulated sports betting services and the second/third order effects from both. Treating drug use as a criminal act, as opposed to a healthcare problem, has very different societal effects.
Whataboutism is more like "Side A did bad thing", "oh yeah, what about side B and the bad things they have done". It is more just deflection. While using similar/related issues to inform and contextualize the issue at hand can also be overused or abused, but it is not the same as whataboutism, which is rarely productive.
How is ai sex chat like any of those things, whataboutism indeed
I was using whataboutism to demonstrate how bad of an argument whataboutism is. My arguments were exactly as bad as my parent’s, and that was the point.
Pointing out an inconsistency isn't always whataboutism (and I don't think it was in this case). An implied argument was made that we should regulate LLMs for the same reason that we regulate drugs (presumably addiction, original commenter wasn't entirely clear). It is entirely reasonable to wonder how that might extrapolate to other addictive activities. In fact we currently regulate those quite differently than drugs, including the part where alcohol isn't considered to be a drug for some strange reason.
The point being made then is that clearly there's far more to the picture than just "it's addictive" or "it results in various social ills".
Contrast that with your human trafficking example (definitely qualifies as whataboutism). We have clear reasons to want to outlaw human trafficking. Sometimes we fail to successfully enforce the existing regulations. That (obviously) isn't an argument that we should repeal them.
> including the part where alcohol isn't considered to be a drug for some strange reason.
It's not a strange reason. IIRC, most cultures have a culturally understood and tolerated intoxicant. In our culture, that's alcohol.
Human culture is not some strange robotic thing, where the expectation is some kind hyper consistency in whatever narrow slice you look at.
I don't object to alcohol being tolerated. But I do think that distinguishing it from other drugs is odd. Particularly when the primary reason given for regulating other drugs is their addictiveness which alcohol shares.
We tolerate a recreational drug. Lots of people regularly consume a recreational drug and yet somehow society doesn't split at the seams. We should just acknowledge the reality. I think people would if not for all the "war on drugs" brainwashing. I think what we see is easily explained as it being easier to bury one's head in the sand than it is to give serious thought to ideas that challenge one's worldview or the law.
> I don't object to alcohol being tolerated. But I do think that distinguishing it from other drugs is odd.
The point I was making is that it's not odd, unless you're thinking about human culture wrong (e.g. like its somehow weird that broad rules have exceptions).
> Particularly when the primary reason given for regulating other drugs is their addictiveness which alcohol shares.
One, not all addictive drugs are equally addictive. Two, it appears you have a weird waterfall-like idea how culture develops, like there's some kind identification of a problematic characteristic (addictiveness), then there's a comprehensive research program to find all things with that characteristic (all addictive substances), and finally consistent rules are set so that they're all treated exactly the same when looked at myopically (allow all or deny all). Human culture is much more organic than that, and it won't look like math or well-architected software. There's a lot more give and take.
I mean here are some obvious complexities that will lead to disparate treatment of different substances:
1. Shared cultural knowledge about how to manage the substance, including rituals for use (this is the big one).
2. Degree of addictiveness and other problematic behavior.
3. Socially positive aspects.
4. Tradition.
No? I don't never said (and don't believe) any of that. I don't think the legislative inconsistency is odd. As you rightly point out it's perfectly normal for rules to be inconsistent due to (among other things) shared culture. The former exists to serve the latter after all, not the other way around.
What I said I find odd is the way people refuse to plainly call alcohol what it is. You can refer to it as a drug yet still support it being legal. The cognitive inconsistency (ie the refusal to admit that it is a drug) is what I find odd.
I also find it odd that we treat substances that the data clearly indicates are less harmful than alcohol as though they were worse. We have alcohol staring us in the face as a counterexample to the claim that such laws are necessary. I think that avoidance of this observation can largely explain the apparent widespread unwillingness to refer to alcohol as a drug.
> One, not all addictive drugs are equally addictive.
Indeed. Alcohol happens to be more addictive than most substances that are regulated on the basis of being addictive. Not all, but most. Interesting, isn't it?
> What I said I find odd is the way people refuse to plainly call alcohol what it is. You can refer to it as a drug yet still support it being legal. The cognitive inconsistency (ie the refusal to admit that it is a drug) is what I find odd.
Maybe the confusion is yours? You think the category is "drug" but it's really more like "taboo drug."
> I also find it odd that we treat substances that the data clearly indicates are less harmful than alcohol as though they were worse. We have alcohol staring us in the face as a counterexample to the claim that such laws are necessary. I think that avoidance of this observation can largely explain the apparent widespread unwillingness to refer to alcohol as a drug.
I think you missed a pretty key point: "shared cultural knowledge about how to manage the substance, including rituals for use (this is the big one)." In the West, that exists for alcohol, but not really for anything else. People know how it works and what it does, can recognize its use, have practices for its safe use that work for (most) people (e.g. drink in certain social settings), and are at least somewhat familiar with usage failure modes. A "less harmful" thing that you don't know how to use safely can be more harmful than a "more harmful" thing you know how to use safely. None of this is "data driven," nor should it be.
> It is entirely reasonable to wonder how that might extrapolate to other addictive activities.
I presume my GP would have no objections to regulating these things their commenter whatabouted. The inconsistency is with the legislator, not in GPs arguments.
Obviously I also think the commenter would support that - I said as much in GP. In context, the reply is suggesting (implicitly) that it is an absurd stance to take. That it means being largely against the way our society is currently organized. That is not a whataboutism.
Like if someone were to say "man we should really outlaw bikes, you can get seriously injured while using one" a reasonable response would be to point out all the things that are more dangerous than bikes that the vast majority of people clearly do not want to outlaw. That is not whataboutism. The point of such an argument might be to illustrate that the proposal (as opposed to any logical deduction) is dead on arrival due to lack of popular support. Alternatively, the point could be to illustrate that a small amount of personal danger is not the basis on which we tend to outlaw such things. Or it could be something else. As long as there's a valid relationship it isn't whataboutism.
That's categorically different than saying "we shouldn't do X because we don't do Y" where X and Y don't actually have any bearing on one another. "Country X shouldn't persecute group Y. But what about country A that persecutes group B?" That's a whataboutism. (Unless the groups are somehow related in a substantial manner or some other edge case. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at though.)
> a reasonable response would be to point out all the things that are more dangerous than bikes that the vast majority of people clearly do not want to outlaw.
I disagree. It is in fact not a reasonable argument, it is not even a good argument. It is still whataboutism. There are way better arguments out there, for example:
Bicycles are in fact regulated, and if anything these regulations are too lax, as most legislators are categorizing unambiguous electric motorcycles as bicycles, allowing e-motorcycle makers to market them to kids and teenagers that should not be riding them.
Now as for the whatabout cars argument: If you compare car injuries to bicycle injuries, the former are of a completely different nature, by far most bicycle injuries will heal, that is not true of car injuries (especially car injuries involving a victim on a bicycle). So talking about other things that are more dangerous is playing into your opponents arguments, when there is in fact no reason to do that.
I believe you have a categorical misunderstanding of what "whataboutism" actually means.
If the point being made is "people don't generally agree with that position" it is by definition not whataboutism. To be whataboutism the point being made is _required_ to be nil. That is, the two things are not permitted to be related in a manner that is relevant to the issue being discussed.
Now you might well disagree with the point being made or the things being extrapolated from it. The key here is merely whether or not such a point exists to begin with. Observing that things are not usually done a certain way can be valid and relevant even if you yourself do not find the line of reasoning convincing in the end.
Contrast with my example about countries persecuting groups of people. In that case there is no relevant relation between the acts or the groups. That is whataboutism.
So too your earlier example involving human trafficking. The fact that enforcement is not always successful has no bearing (at least in and of itself) on whether or not we as a society wish to permit it.
BTW when I referred to danger there it wasn't about cars. I had in mind other recreational activities such as roller blading, skateboarding, etc. Anything done for sport that carries a non-negligible risk of serious injury when things go wrong. I agree that it's not a good argument. It was never meant to be.
It's bad because people are engaging in it without getting permission from runarberg on Hacker News.
No need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_...
The majority of illegal drugs aren't addictive, and people are already addicted to the addictive ones. Drug laws are a "social issue" (Moral Majority-influenced), not intended to help people or prevent harm.
Drug laws are the confluence of many factors. Moral Majority types want everything they disapprove of banned. People whose lives are harmed by drug abuse want "something" to be done. Politicians want issues that arouse considerably more passion on one side of the argument than the other. Companies selling already legal drugs want to restrict competition. Private prisons want inmates. And so on.
> Repeal the laws and I'm sure there will be tons of startups to profit off of drug addiction.
Worked for gambling.
(Not saying this as a message of support. I think legalizing/normalizing easy app-based gambling was a huge mistake and is going to have an increasingly disastrous social impact).
Why do you think it will be increasingly bad? It seems to me like it’s already as bad as it’s capable of getting.
Because it's still relatively new. Gambling's been around forever, and so has addiction. What hasn't been around is gambling your life away on the same device(s) you do everything else in today's modern society on. If you had an unlimited supply of whatever monkey is on your back, right at your fingertips, you'd be dead before the week is out from an overdose. It's the normalization of this level of access to gambling which gives me great fear for the future. Giving drugs to minors is a bigger crime than to adults for a reason. Without regulation and strong cultural push back, it's gonna get way worse, unless we make huge leaps in addiction treatment (which I am hopeful for. GLP-1s aren't yet scientifically proven to help with that, but there's a large body of anecdotal evidence to suggest it does.
It's only been 8 years, the addicts lives and those they touch can keep getting worse until their death.
The Politician's syllogism in action:
That is terrible.
Se have to do something.
This is something.
We must do it.
It terms of harm current laws on drugs fail everyone but teetotaller who want everyone else to have a miserable life too.
> It terms of harm current laws on drugs fail everyone but teetotaller who want everyone else to have a miserable life too.
You think teetotallers have miserables lives? Come on.
There's a conservation of excitement for each human. If someone's life was exciting but then it got boring, unless they do a shit ton of work on themselves, they're gonna have to find that excitement somehow. We see this with Hollywood actresses who shoplift when they have more than enough money to buy the things they stole.
Even after Stranger Things, Winona can't live that one down.
what about laws against porn? Oh, wait, no, that's a legitimate business.
Respectfully, this is a piss take.
US prohibition on alcohol and to the large extent performative "war on drugs" showed what criminalization does (empowers, finances and radicalises the criminals).
Portugal's decriminalisation, partial legalisation of weed in the Netherlands, legalisation in some American states and Canada prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
And then there's the opioid addiction scandal in the US. Don't tell me it's the result of legalisation.
Legalisation of some classes of the drugs (like LSD, mushrooms, etc) would do much more good than bad.
Conversely, unrestricted LLMs are avaliable to everyone already. And prompting SOTA models to generate the most hardcore smut you can imagine is also possible today.
> Portugal's decriminalisation, partial legalisation of weed in the Netherlands, legalisation in some American states and Canada prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
You’re stretching it big time. The situation in the Netherlands caused the rise of drug tourism, which isn’t exactly great for locals, nor does it stop crime or contamination.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2022/11/change-starts-here-amsterda...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/24/bacteria-pesti...
As for Portugal, decriminalisation does not mean legalisation. Drugs are still illegal, it‘s just that possession is no longer a crime and there are places where you can safely shoot up harder drugs, but the goal is still for people to leave them.
>Portugal's decriminalisation, (..) prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
Portugal's success regarding drugs wasn't about the free market. It was about treating addicts like victims or patients rather than criminals, it actually took a larger investment from the state and the benefits of that framework dissolved once budgets were cut.
Oh, I see how it could be understood as decriminalisation -> private companies selling drugs.
It wasn't my intention
This is why I said "decriminalisation" and not "legalisation".
It's not just chat. Remember image and video generation are on the table. There are already a huge category of adult video 'games' of this nature. I think they use combos of pre-rendered and dynamic content. But really not hard to imagine a near future that interactive and completely personalized AI porn in full 4kHDR or VR is constantly and near-instantly available. I have no idea the broader social implications of all that, but the tech itself feels inevitable and nearly here.
If your goal is to make money, sure. If your goal is to make AI safe, not so much.
The definition of safety is something that we cannot agree on.
For me, letting people mindlessly vibecode apps and then pretend this code can serve purpose for others - this is what's truly unsafe.
Pornographic text in LLM? Come on.
What if it knows you and knows how often you spend kinds of time on it? People would lie to it for excuses of why they need more and can't wait any longer?
It will be an even bigger market when robotics are sufficiently advanced.
At some point there will be robots with LLMs and actual real biological skin with blood vessels and some fat over a humanoid robot shell. At that point we won’t need real human relationships anymore.
That market is for local models right now.
My main concern is when they'll start to allow 18+ deepfakes
Will be?
I've seen four startups make bank on precicely that.
My personal take is that there has been no progress - potentially there has been a regression on all LLM things outside of coding a scientific pursuits - I used to have great fun with LLMs with creative writing stuff, but I feel like current models are stiff and not very good prose writers.
This is also true for stuff like writing clear but concise docs, they're overly verbose while often not getting the point across.
I feel like this comes from the rigorous Reinforcement Learning these models go through now. The token distribution is becoming so narrow, so the models give better answers more often that is stuffles their creativity and ability to break out of the harness. To me, every creative prompt I give them turns into kind of the same mush as output. It is rarely interesting
Yeah, I’ve had great success at coding recently, but every time I try to get an LLM to write me a spec it generates endless superlatives and a lot of flowery language.
What’s the goal there? Sexting?
I’m guessing age is needed to serve certain ads and the like, but what’s the value for customers?
Even when you're making PG content, the general propriety limits of AI can hinder creative work.
The "Easter Bunny" has always seemed creepy to me, so I started writing a silly song in which the bunny is suspected of eating children. I had too many verses written down and wanted to condense the lyrics, but found LLMs telling me "I cannot help promote violence towards children." Production LLM services would not help me revise this literal parody.
Another day I was writing a romantic poem. It was abstract and colorful, far from a filthy limerick. But when I asked LLMs for help encoding a particular idea sequence into a verse, the models refused (except for grok, which didn't give very good writing advice anyway.)
Just today I asked how to shut down a Mac with "maximal violence". I was looking for the equivalent of "systemctl shutdown -f -f" and it refused to help me do violence.
Believe me, the Mac deserved it.
It reminds me that story about a teenage learning Rust that got a refusal because he had asked about "unsafe" code =)
Maybe a more formal "with extreme prejudice" would have worked.
If you don't think the potential market for AI sexbots is enormous you have not paid attention to humanity.
This is not a potential market, this market is already thriving (and whoever wants to uses ChatGPT or Claude for that anyway).
ClosedAI just wants to a piece of the casual user too.
There is a subreddit called /r/myboyfriendisAI, you can look through it and see for yourself.
according to the age-prediction page, the changes are:
> If [..] you are under 18, ChatGPT turns on extra safety settings. [...] Some topics are handled more carefully to help reduce sensitive content, such as:
- Graphic violence or gore
- Viral challenges that could push risky or harmful behavior
- Sexual, romantic, or violent role play
- Content that promotes extreme beauty standards, unhealthy dieting, or body shaming
Porn has driven just about every bit of progress on the internet, I don't see why AI would be the exception to that rule.
yeah linus was beating it constantly to porn while developing the linux kernal. its proven fact. every oss project that runs the internet was done the same way, sure.
Maybe not as far-fetched as one might think.
Linus about the Tux mascot:
Linus about free software:I wouldn't be surprised if both of those were true.
You think RMS isn’t secretly a pervert? Just look at his comments about Epstein that got him cancled.
Unironically if they look disheveled it’s because they are indeed coomers behind closed doors.
This seems like a believable lie, until you think about it for 2 seconds.
No. Porn has not driven even a fraction of the progress on the progress on the internet. Not even close to one.
Ok, we'll expand to porn and gambling
- images - payment systems - stored video - banner advertising - performance based advertising - affiliation - live video - video chat - fora
Etc... AI is a very logical frontier for the porn industry.
I don't remember any of these being "driven" by porn. The first applications weren't porn-based. Maybe live video--a split second after seeing the tech for the first time, probably 99% of guys were thinking of _applying_ it to porn. But, even for the usual money-grubbing startups, there was plenty of money coming from non-porn sources. Probably no different than the invention of camera, tv, videocamera, etc. and you wouldn't say porn drove that.
> I don't remember any of these being "driven" by porn.
That's ok.
> The first applications weren't porn-based.
They most definitely were, it is just that you are not aware of it. There runs a direct line from the 1-900 phone industry to the internet adult industry, those guys had money like water and they spent a fortune on these developments. Not all of them worked out but quite a few of them did and as a result those very same characters managed to grab a substantial chunk of early internet commerce.
" There runs a direct line from the 1-900 phone industry to the internet adult industry"
the internet adult industry is not the same as the internet. And if you;re trying to say the internet was developed for the sake of the internet adult industry, you're sounding circular.
I never made that claim and I'm fairly familiar with the development of the early internet, I was hanging around a lot at CWI/NikHef in the 80's and early 90's.
I think this is like quibbling that the military isn't the driver of technological advances. It's not the only one, but it has a strong track record of throwing outsized resources at the bleeding edge and pushing it forward by leaps and bounds.
Porn and piracy outfits have historically adopted and pushed forward the bleeding edge of the internet. More recently that role has shifted towards the major platforms operated by BigTech. That's only natural though - they've concentrated the economics sufficiently that it makes sense for them.
But even then, take video codecs for example. BigTech develops and then rolls things out to their own infra. Outside of them it's piracy sitting at the bleeding edge of the adoption curve right now. The best current FOSS AV1 encoder is literally developed by the people pirating anime of all things. If it wasn't for them the FOSS reference encoder would still be half assed.
Just because things can be used for porn, it doesn't mean that it was porn that has driven their progress.
All of the things above were driven by porn, that can be proven. The AI stuff in the generic sense is not but you can bet that someone somewhere right now is working on improving photo realism of hair, eyes and skintone and they're not doing that to be able to make the next installment of little red riding hood.
Holy effing shit you are literally talking about me right now! LOL I've spent all day improving a LoRA further and further exactly because I need her skin and hair to look a lot more real than is generally available, for exactly your stated reason! :D
Edit: I've registered just for your comment! Ahaahahaha, cheers! :D
[flagged]
Can you actually prove it?
Yes, I was there for quite a bit of it...
a) I don’t believe you, and
b) This is exactly the kind of urban legend which tends to proliferate in human society, a cute lie which sounds believable. Like prostitution being the oldest profession, and the great wall of China being the only human made structure visible from space.
The story of the Internet is that it was developed in the mid to late 1960s by a couple of Universities in America and used by the US military to share resources across mainframes in each institution, as well as across institutions. Since then them main driver of innovation has been among universities and telecommunication companies finding optimal ways to deliver packages across telephone cables, antenna, satellites, etc.
The story of the Web is that it was developed in 1989-1991 to organize and link documents at the CERN research laboratory in Switzerland. Since then the main driver for innovations has been browser vendors competing and collaborating in developing browser technologies such that users pick their browser over the competition.
I don‘t know the story of online payment systems, but I bet the main drivers were companies opining up stores on the web and looking to replace pay by wire schemes over the telephone, and a bunch of start-ups who were able to find that market niche, developed software and sold it to those stores. The main driver of innovation here being start-ups. Porn sites and Gambling sites were no more important to that story as any other stores who sold art, golf-clubs, flight tickets, or hotel bookings.
[dead]
There is a huge book market for sexual stories, in case you were not aware.
West World style robots
Porn and ads, it's the convergent evolution theory for all things on the internet.
I am 30 years old, literally told chatgpt I was a software developer, all my queries are something an adult would ask, yet OpenAI assumed I was under 18 and asked me for a persona age verification, which of course I refused because Persona is shady as a company (plus I'm not giving my personal ID to some random tech company).
ChatGPT is absolute garbage.
eh there's an old saying that goes "no Internet technology can be considered a success until it has been adopted by (or in this case integrated with) the porn industry".
imagine if every only fans creator suddenly paid a portion of their revenue to OpenAI for better messaging with their followers…
Instead of paying it to the human third party firms that currently handle communication with subscribers?
>We brought GPT‑4o back after hearing clear feedback from a subset of Plus and Pro users, who told us they needed more time to transition key use cases, like creative ideation, and that they preferred GPT‑4o’s conversational style and warmth.
This does verify the idea that OpenAI does not make models sycophantic due to attempted subversion by buttering up users so that that they use the product more, its because people actually want AI to talk to them like that. To me, that's insane, but they have to play the market I guess
As someone who's worked with population data, I found that there is an enormous rift between reported opinion (and HN and reddit opinion) vs revealed (through experimentation) population preferences.
I always thought that the idea that "revealed preferences" are preferences, discounts that people often make decisions they would rather not. It's like the whole idea that if you're on a diet, it's easier to not have junk food in the house to begin with than to have junk food and not eat more than your target amount. Are you saying these people want to put on weight? Or is it just they've been put in a situation that defeats their impulse control?
I feel a lot of the "revealed preference" stuff in advertising is similar in advertisers finding that if they get past the easier barriers that users put in place, then really it's easier to sell them stuff that at a higher level the users do not want.
Perfectly put. Revealed preference simply assumes impulses are all correct, which is not the case, an exploits that.
Drugs make you feel great, in moderation perfectly acceptable, constantly not so much.
Absolutely. Nicotine addiction can meet the criteria for a revealed preference, certainly an observed choice
One example I like to use is schadenfreude. The emotion makes us feel good and bad at the same time: it's pleasurable but in an icky way. So should social media algorithms serve schadenfreude? Should algorithms maximize for pleasure (show it) or for some kind of "higher self" (don't show it). If they maximize for "higher self" then which designer gets to choose what that means?
Well that's what akrasia is. It's not necessarily a contradiction that needs to be reconciled. It's fine to accept that people might want to behave differently than how they are behaving.
A lot of our industry is still based on the assumption that we should deliver to people what they demonstrate they want, rather than what they say they want.
Exactly, that sounds to me like a TikTok vs NPR/books thing, people tell everyone what they read, then go spend 11h watching TikToks until 2am.
Not true. People can rationally know what they want but still be tempted by the poorer alternative.
If you ask me if I want to eat healthy and clean and I respond on the affirmative, it’s not a “gotcha” if you bait me with a greasy cheeseburger and then say “you failed the A/B test, demonstrating we know what you actually want more than you.”
Sounds both true and interesting. Any particularly wild and/or illuminating examples of which you can share more detail?
My favorite somewhat off topic example of this is some qualitative research I was building the software for a long time ago.
The difference between the responses and the pictures was illuminating, especially in one study in particular - you'd ask people "how do you store your lunch meat" and they say "in the fridge, in the crisper drawer, in a ziploc bag", and when you asked them to take a picture of it, it was just ripped open and tossed in anywhere.
This apparently horrified the lunch meat people ("But it'll get all crusty and dried out!", to paraphrase), which that study and ones like it are the reason lunch meat comes with disposable containers now, or is resealable, instead of just in a tear-to-open packet. Every time I go grocery shopping it's an interesting experience knowing that specific thing is in a small way a result of some of the work I did a long time ago.
The "my boyfriend is AI" subreddit.
A lot of people are lonely and talking to these things like a significant other. They value roleplay instruction following that creates "immersion." They tell it to be dark and mysterious and call itself a pet name. GPT-4o was apparently their favorite because it was very "steerable." Then it broke the news that people were doing this, some of them falling off the deep end with it, so they had to tone back the steerability a bit with 5, and these users seem to say 5 breaks immersion with more safeguards.
If you ask the users of that sub why their boyfriend is AI they will tell you their partner or men in general aren't providing them with enough emotional support/stimulation.
I do wonder if they would accept the mirror explanation for men enjoying porn.
Classic example: people say they'd rather pay $12 upfront and then no extra fees but they actually prefer $10 base price + $2 fees. If it didn't work then this pricing model wouldn't be so widespread.
wow, framing. "people say they prefer quitting smoking, but actually they prefer to relapse when emotionally manipulated."
The most commonly taken action does not imply people wanted to do it more, or felt happiest doing it. Unless you optimize profit only.
This is why I work in direct performance advertising. Our work reveals the truth!
Your work exploits people's addictive propensity and behaviours, and gives corporations incentives and tools to build on that.
Insane spin you're putting on it. At best, you're a cog in one of the worst recent evolutions of capitalism.
Exploitative ads are a small minority. I also think gambling advertising should be banned.
Advertising is not a recent evolution of capitalism, it's a foundational piece of it. Whatever you do as a job would not exist if there was no one marketing it. This hostility seems insane.
Not having my job would be a tiny price to pay compared to the benefit of living in a world with no advertisements.
“No advertisements” seems extreme to me. I want to know when a good band is playing at a local venue, or has an album out. I like hearing about new books, or a restaurant near me.
The absolutist position that “all ads are always bad” is a non-starter for me. Especially as long as we exist in a capitalist system. Small business, indie creators, etc. must advertise in some fashion to survive. It’s only the behemoths that could afford to stop doing it (ironically). I’ve never really understood why, e.g. Pepsi and Coke spend so much on advertising: most people already have a preference and I am skeptical that the millions they spend actually moves the needle either way. (“Is Pepsi okay?” “It absolutely is not.”)
>I’ve never really understood why, e.g. Pepsi and Coke spend so much on advertising
When was the last time you saw an ad for something non digital and you stopped everything and bought it or even made concrete plans to do so later ? Probably almost never right ? So why still so many ads ? More importantly, why is it still so profitable ?
Because much of the impact of advertising is sub conscious imprint rather than conscious action. Have you ever been in a grocery store and you needed to get something and picked a "random" brand ? Yeah, that choice may not have been so random after all. Or perhaps you're sitting at home or work and have a sudden seemingly unprompted craving for <insert food place>. Yeah, maybe not so unprompted.
There are (and continue to be) millions of young people who do not yet have firm preferences. For the already faithful, their advertising is mostly about reminding them to consume more.
Advertising always seems like a prisoner’s dilemma. If no one advertised, people would still buy things.
Yes but the advantage would be much more towards incumbents
> Advertising is not a recent evolution of capitalism, it's a foundational piece of it
What does that say about capitalism?
The early theorists of capitalism didn't imagine that advanced psychology (that didn't even exist back then) would be used to convince people to buy $product.
Messages of that sophistication are always dangerous, and modern advertising is the most widespread example of it.
The hostility is more than justified, I can only hope the whole industry is regulated downwards, even if whatever company I work for sells less.
> Messages of that sophistication [...]
By demonising them, you are making ads sounds way more glamorous than they are.
>it's a foundational piece of it
No it's not
> its because people actually want AI to talk to them like that
I can't find the particular article (there's a few blogs and papers pointing out the phenomenon, I can't find the one I enjoyed) but it was along the lines of how in LLMArena a lot of users tend to pick the "confidently incorrect" model over the "boring sounding but correct" model.
The average user probably prefers the sycophantic echo chamber of confirmation bias offered by a lot of large language models.
I can't help but draw parallels to the "You are not immune to propaganda" memes. Turns out most of us are not immune to confirmation bias, either.
I thought this was almost due to the AI personality splinter groups (trying to be charitable) like /myboyfriendisai and wrapper apps who vocally let them know they used those models the last time they sunset them.
I was one of those pesky users who complained when o3 suddenly was unavailable.
When 5.2 was first launched, o3 did a notably better job at a lot of analytical prompts (e.g. "Based on the attached weight log and data from my calorie tracking app, please calculate my TDEE using at least 3 different methodologies").
o3 frequently used tables to present information, which I liked a lot. 5.2 rarely does this - it prefers to lay out information in paragraphs / blog post style.
I'm not sure if o3 responses were better, or if it was just the format of the reply that I liked more.
If it's just a matter of how people prefer to be presented their information, that should be something LLMs are equipped to adapt to at a user-by-user level based on preferences.
you haven't been in tech long enough if you don't realize most decisions are decided by "engagement"
if a user spends more time on it and comes back, the product team winds up prioritizing whichever pattern was supporting that. it's just a continual selective evolution towards things that keep you there longer, based on what kept everyone else there longer
They have added settings for this now - you can dial up and down how “warm” and “enthusiastic” you want the models to be. I haven’t done back to back tests to see how much this affects sycophancy, but adding the option as a user preference feels like the right choice.
If anyone is wondering, the setting for this is called Personalisation in user settings.
I don't want sycophantic AI, but I do have warmer memories of using 4o vs 5. It just felt a little more interesting and consistent to talk to.
I thought it was based on the user thumbs-up and thumbs-down reactions, it evolving the way that it does makes it pretty obvious that users want their asses licked
This doesn't come as too much of a surprise to me. Feels like it mirrors some of the reasons why toxic positivity occurs in the workplace.
I think we underestimate the power that our unconscious and lizard brains have in shaping our behavior/preferences. I was using GPT for work and the sycophantic responses were eyerollingly annoying, but I still noticed that I got some sort of dopamine hit when it would saying something like "that is an incredibly insightful question. You are truly demonstrating a deep understanding of blah blah blah". Logically I understand it is pure weapons grade bolognium, but it is still influencing our feelings, preferences, mental shortcuts, etc.
Put on a good show, offer something novel, and people will gleefully march right off a cliff while admiring their shiny new purchase.
Your absolutely right. You’re not imagining it. Here is the quiet truth:
You’re not imagining it, and honestly? You're not broken for feeling this—its perfectly natural as a human to have this sentiment.
After they pushed the limits on the Thinking models to 3000 per week, I haven't touched anything else. I am really satisfied with their performance and the 200k context windows is quite nice.
I've been using Gemini exclusively for the 1 million token context window, but went back to ChatGPT after the raise of the limits and created a Project system for myself which allows me to have much better organization with Projects + only Thinking chats (big context) + project-only memory.
Also, it seems like Gemini is really averse to googling (which is ironic by itself) and ChatGPT, at least in the Thinking modes loves to look up current and correct info. If I ask something a bit more involved in Extended Thinking mode, it will think for several minutes and look up more than 100 sources. It's really good, practically a Deep Research inside of a normal chat.
I REALLY struggle with Gemini 3 Pro refusing to perform web searches / getting combative with the current date. Ironically their flash model seems much more likely to opt for web search for info validation.
Not sure if others have seen this...
I could attribute it to:
1. It's known quantity with the pro models (I recall that the pro/thinking models from most providers were not immediately equipped with web search tools when they were released originally)
2. Google wants you to pay more for grounding via their API offerings vs. including it out of the box
Gemini refused to believe that I was using MacOS 26.
I was seeing this several weeks ago but seems fixed recently, at least for my types of queries. I only use Pro
when I want it to google stuff, I just use the deep research mode. Not as instant, but it googles a lot of stuff then
Sample of one here, but I get the exact opposite behavior. Flash almost never wants to search and I have to use Pro.
I find Gemini does the most searching (and the quickest... regularly pulls 70+ search results on a query in a matter of seconds - likely due to googlebot's cache of pretty much every page). Chatgpt seems to only search if you have it in thinking/research mode now.
Been unhappy with the GPT5 series, after daily driving 4.x for ages (I chat with them through the API) - very pedantic, goes off on too many side topics, stops following system instructions after a few turns (e.g. "you respond in 1-3 sentences" becomes long bulleted lists and multiple paragraphs very quickly.
Much better feel with the Claude 4.5 series, for both chat and coding.
> you respond in 1-3 sentences" becomes long bulleted lists and multiple paragraphs very quickly
This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity. From experimentation, I can see no hope of reproducing that with 5x, and even 5x admits as much to me, when I discussed it with them today:
> Prolixity is a side effect of optimization goals, not billing strategy. Newer models are trained to maximize helpfulness, coverage, and safety, which biases toward explanation, hedging, and context expansion. GPT-4 was less aggressively optimized in those directions, so it felt terser by default.
Share and enjoy!
> This is why my heart sank this morning. I have spent over a year training 4.0 to just about be helpful enough to get me an extra 1-2 hours a day of productivity.
Maybe you should consider basing your workflows on open-weight models instead? Unlike proprietary API-only models no one can take these away from you.
I have considered it, and it is still on the docket. I have a local 3090 dedicated to ML. Would be a fascinating and potentially really useful project, but as a freelancer, it would cost a lot to give it the time it needs.
You can’t ask GPT to assess the situation. That’s not the kind of question you can count on a an LLM to accurately answer.
Playing with the system prompts, temperature, and max token output dials absolutely lets you make enough headway (with the 5 series) in this regard to demonstrably render its self-analysis incorrect.
And how would GPT 5.0 know that, I wonder. I bet it’s just making stuff up.
What kind of "training" did you do?
4.1 is great for our stuff at work. It's quite stable (doesn't change personality every month, and one word difference doesn't change the behaviour). IT doesn't think, so it's still reasonably fast.
Is there anything as good in the 5 series? likely, but doing the full QA testing again for no added business value, just because the model disappears, is just a hard sell. But the ones we tested were just slower, or tried to have more personality, which is useless for automation projects.
Yeah - agreed, the initial latency is annoying too, even with thinking allegedly turned off. Feels like AI companies are stapling more and more weird routing, summarization, safety layers, etc. that degrade the overall feel of things.
I also found this disturbing, as I used to use GPT for small worked out theoretical problems. In 5.2, the long list of repeated bulleted lists and fortune cookies was a negative for my use case. I replaced some of that use with Claude and am experimenting with LM studio and gpt-oss. It seemed like an obvious regression to me, but maybe people weren't using it that way.
For instance something simple like: "If I put 10kw in solar on my roof when is the payback given xyz price / incentive / usage pattern."
Used to give a kind of short technical report, now it's a long list of bullets and a very paternalistic "this will never work" kind of negativity. I'm assuming this is the anti-sycophant at work, but when you're working a problem you have to be optimistic until you get your answer.
For me this usage was a few times a day for ideas, or working through small problems. For code I've been Claude for at least a year, it just works.
I can never understand why it is so eager to generate walls of text. I have instructions to always keep the response precise and to the point. It almost seem like it wants to overwhelm you, so you give up and do your own research.
I often use ChatGPT without an account and ChatGPT 5 mini (which you get while logged out) might as well be Mistral 7b + web search. Its that mediocre. Even the original 3.5 was way ahead.
I kinda miss the original 3.5 model sometimes. Definitely not as smart as 4o but wow was it impressive when new. Apparently I have a very early ChatGPT account per the recent "wrapped" feature.
Really? I’ve found it useful for random little things.
It is useful for quick information lookup when you're lacking the precise search terms (which is what I've often do). But the way I was chatting with the original chatgpt were better.
ChatGPT 5.2 has been a good motivator for me to try out other LLMs because of how bad it is. Both 5.1 and 5.2 have been downgrades in terms of instruction following and accuracy, but 5.2 especially so. The upside is that that's had me using Claude much more, and I like a lot of things about it, both in terms of UI and the answers. It's also gotten me more serious about running local models. So, thank you OpenAI, for forcing me to broaden my horizons!
I left my chatgpt pro subscription when they removed the true deep thinkibg methods.
Mostly because how massively varied their releases are. Each one required big changes to how I use and work with it.
Claude is perfect in this sense all their models feel roughly the same just smarter so my workflow is always the same.
> all their models feel roughly the same just smarter
Substantial "applied outcomes" regression from 3.7 to 4 but they got right on fixing that.
Have you had a chance to compare with Gemini 3?
I switch routinely between Gemini 3 (my main), Claude, GPT, and sometimes Grok. If you came up with 100 random tasks, they would all come out about equal. The issue is some are better at logical issues, some are better at creative writing, etc. If it's something creative I usually drop it in all 4 and combine the best bits of each.
(I also use Deep Think on Gemini too, and to me, on programming tasks, it's not really worth the money)
This is the only accurate take. Any people who claim that one of the big 3 is all around "bad" or "low quality" compared to the other two, can be ignored. They're close enough in overall "strength" yet different enough in strengths/weakness that it's very much task/domain-specific.
Not extensively. The few interactions I've tried on it have been disappointing though. The Voice input is really bad, like significantly worse than any other major AI in the market. And I assumed search would be its strong suit and ran a search-and-compile type prompt (that I usually run on ChatGPT) on Gemini, and it was underwhelming at it. Not as bad as Grok (which was pretty much unusable for this), but noticeably worse than ChatGPT. Maybe Gemini has other strengths that I haven't come across yet, but on that one at least, it was
nah bruh you are just imagining it.
Its just as good as ever /s
Retiring the most popular model for the relationship roleplay just one day before the Valentin's day is particularly ironic =) bravo, OpenAI!
It'd be legitimately funny if they released "Adult version" ChatGPT on Valentine's day.
Valentine's is in mid February
The sunset date is the 13th. V-day is on the 14th.
> [...] the vast majority of usage has shifted to GPT‑5.2, with only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT‑4o each day.
Well yeah, because 5.2 is the default and there's no way to change the default. So every time you open up a new chat you either use 5.2 or go out of your way to select something else.
(I'm particularly annoyed by this UI choice because I always have to switch back to 5.1)
I'm the same with o3.
Also it's full of bugs, showing JSON all the time while thinking. But still it's my favorite model, so I'm switching back a lot.
What about 5.1 do you prefer over 5.2?
As far as I can tell 5.2 is the stronger model on paper, but it's been optimized to think less and do less web searches. I daily drive Thinking variants, not Auto or Instant, and usually want the _right_ answer even if it takes a minute. 5.1 does a very good job of defensively web searching, which avoids almost all of its hallucinations and keeps docs/APIs/UIs/etc up-to-date. 5.2 will instead often not think at all, even in Thinking mode. I've gotten several completely wrong, hallucinated answers since 5.2 came out, whereas maybe a handful from 5.1. (Even with me using 5.2 far less!)
The same seems to persist in Codex CLI, where again 5.2 doesn't spend as much time thinking so its solutions never come out as nicely as 5.1's.
That said, 5.1 is obviously slower for these reasons. I'm fine with that trade off. Others might have lighter workloads and thus benefit more from 5.2's speed.
This is a terrible thing to say out loud*, but, in all such cases I'd rather just give them the more money to do the better answers.
It boggles the mind that "wrong answers only" is no longer just a meme, it's considered a valid cost management strategy in AI.
* Because if they realize we're out here, they'll price discriminate, charging extra for right answers.
0.1% of users is not necessarily 0.1% of conversations…
What's the default model when a random user goes to use the chatgpt website or app?
5.2 in the website. You can see what was used for a specific response by hovering over the refresh icon at the end.
5.2.
You can go to chatgpt.com and ask "what model are you" (it doesn't hallucinate on this).
Probably a relationship between what's the default and what model is being used the most. It is more about what OAI sets than what users care about. Flip side is "good enough is good enough" for most users.
> (it doesn't hallucinate on this)
But how do we know that you did not hallucinate the claim that ChatGPT does not hallucinate its version number?
We could try to exfiltrate the system prompt which probably contains the model name, but all extraction attempts could of course be hallucinations as well.
(I think there was an interview where Sam Altman or someone else at OpenAI where it was mentioned that they hardcoded the model name in the prompt because people did not understand that models don't work like that, so they made it work. I might be hallucinating though.)
Confabulating* If you were hallucinating we would be more amused :)
On the paid version it is 5.2.
won't somebody think of the goonettes?!
This was not a word I was prepared to learn about today.
https://old.reddit.com/r/myboyfriendisai/top?t=all
I’ve been a long-time Plus subscriber, and I use GPT models not just for technical work, but for emotionally nuanced creative writing. GPT-4o was the first time a model truly felt collaborative — responsive, intuitive, and deeply aligned with human tone. I understand the need to move forward, but removing a model that worked so well for so many of us — without giving us any option to retain it — feels like a step back. Choice matters. Legacy models could be hidden or opt-in for those who want them. But removing them entirely limits the diversity of user needs that ChatGPT once supported so well. I hope OpenAI will listen. Not every use case fits a benchmark score.
Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT or whatever. Can we all agree, that it's great to have so much choice?
Grok is pretty good too!
You’re absolutely right!
I noticed how ChatGPT got progressively worse at helping me with my research. I gave up on ChatGPT 5 and just switched Grok and Gemini. I couldn’t be happier that I switched.
It's amazing how different are the experiences different people have. To me every new version of chatgpt was an improvement and gemini is borderline unusable.
I got the same experience. Dont get how people are saying gemini is so good.
A lot of people still have a shallow understanding of how LLMs work. Each version of a model has different qualities than the last, each model is better or worse at some things than others, and each responds differently to different prompts, styles. Some smaller models perform better than larger ones. Sometimes you should use a system prompt, sometimes you shouldn't. Tuning settings for the model inference (temperature, top_p, penalties, etc) significantly influence the outcome. (https://www.promptingguide.ai/introduction/settings, https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/optimizing-llm-accur...)
Most "big name" models' interfaces don't let you change settings, or not easily. Power users learn to use different interfaces and look up guides to tweak models to get better results. You don't have to just shrug your shoulders and switch models. OpenAI's power interface: https://platform.openai.com/playground Anthropic's power interface: https://platform.claude.com/ For self-hosted/platform-agnostic, OpenWebUI is great: https://openwebui.com/
Gemini has a great model, but it's a bad product. I feel much happier using ChatGPT because Gemini just seems so barebones and unpolished. It has this feeling of a tech demo.
Very curious for what use cases you're finding gemini unusable.
Scientific research and proof-reading. Gemini is the laziest LLM I've used. Frequently he will lie that he searched for something and just make stuff up, basically never happens to me when I'm using gpt5.2.
The way I summed it up to a friend recently is that Gemini 3 is smarter but Grok 4 works harder. Very loose approximation, but roughly maps to my experience. Both are extremely useful (as is GPT-5.2), but I use them on different tasks and sometimes need to manage them a bit differently.
Do you use it directly? I've only used it though Kagi Assistant but it works better than any other model for me
Yes, only directly (I mean through the default gemini interface, not API).
Maybe they messed something up in the official interface then. I've heard that the PDF processing capabilities are also significantly worse in Gemini UI compared to using it through the API or Google AI Studio.
Any coding task produces some trash, while I can prototype with ChatGPT quite a lot, sometimes delivering the entire app almost entirely vibe-coded. Gemini, it takes a few prompts for it to get me mad and just close the tab. I use only the free web versions, never agentic ‘mess with my files’ thing. Claude, is even better than that, but I keep it for serious tasks only, so good it is.
In my experience with Gemini, I find it incapable of not hallucinating.
Gemini loves to ignore Gemini.md instructions from the first minutes, to replace half of the python script with "# other code...", or to try to delete files OUTSIDE of the project directory, then apologise profusely, and try it again.
Utterly unreliable. I get better results, faster, editing parts of the code with Claude in a web ui, lol.
Odd, I've found that Gemini will completely fabricate the content of specific DOIs despite being corrected and even it providing a link to a paper which shows it is off about the title and subject of a paper it will cite. This obviously concerns me about its effectiveness as a research aide.
Why not Claude?
The limits on the $20 plan are too low compared to Gemini and ChatGPT. They're too low to do any serious work at all.
I personally find Claude the best at coding, but it’s usefulness doesn’t seem to extend to scientific research and writing
Because I’m sick of paying $20 for an hour of claude before it throttles me.
Last time they tried to do this they got huge push back from the AI boyfriend people lol
/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ is a whole thing. It's not a joke subreddit.
The range of attitudes in there is interesting. There are a lot of people who take a fairly sensible "this is interactive fiction" kind of attitude, and there are others who bristle at any claim or reminder that these relationships are fictitious. There are even people with human partners who have "married" one or more AIs.
IIRC you'll get modded or banned for being critical of the use case. Which is their "right", but it's freaking weird.
Yes. My experience is that it doesn't require scolding, mocking, or criticizing anyone to get permabanned. Just being up front about the fact that you have concerns about the use case is enough for a permaban, even if you only bring that up in order to demonstrate that such a position does not stem from contempt for LLM-as-companion users. :-\
do you think they know they're just one context reset away from the llm not recognizing them at all and being treated like a stranger off the street? For someone mentally ill and somehow emotionally attached to the context it would be... jarring to say the least.
Many of them are very aware of how LLMs work, they regularly interact with context limits and there have been threads about thoughtfully pruning context vs letting the LLM compact, making backups, etc.
Their hobby is... weird, but they're not stupid.
Generally yes, they experience that routinely and complain and joke about it. Some of them do also describe such jarring experiences as making them cry for a long time.
If you can be respectful and act like a guest, it's worth reading a little there. You'll see the worrisome aspects in more detail but also a level of savvy that sometimes seems quite strange given the level of attachment. It's definitely interesting.
And it's a pity that this highly prevalent phenomenon (to exaggerate a bit, probably the way tech in general will become the most influential in the next couple years) is barely mentioned on HN.
I dunno. Tbf that subreddit has a combination of
I think discussion on forums larger than it, like HN or popular subreddits, is likely to drive traffic that will ultimately fuel a backfiring effect for the members. It's inevitable, and it's already happening, but I'm not sure it needs to increase.I do think the phenomenon is a matter of legitimate public concern, but idk how that can best be addressed. Maybe high-quality, long form journalism? But probably not just cross-posting the sub in larger fora.
Part of me thinks maybe I erred bringing this up, but there's discussions worth having in terms of continued access to software that's working for people regardless of what it is, and on if this is healthy. I'm probably on a live and let live on this but there's been cases of suicide and murder where chatbots were involved, and these people are potentially vulnerable to manipulation from the company.
> highly prevalent phenomenon
Any numbers/reference behind this?
ChatGPT has ~300 million active users a day. A 0.02% (delusion disorder prevalence) would be 60k people.
I'm talking about romance, not delusion. Of course, you can consider AI romance a delusion, but it's not included in that percentage you mentioned.
The percentage I mentioned was an example of how a very small prevalence can result in a reasonable number of people, like enough to fill a subreddit, because ChatGPT has a user count that exceeds all but 3 countries of the world.
Again, do you have anything behind this "highly prevalent phenomenon" claim?
>It's not a joke subreddit.
Spend a day on Reddit and you'll quickly realize many subreddits are just filled with lies.
Any sub that is based on storytelling or reposting memes, videos etc. are karma farms and lies.
Most subs that are based on politics or current events are at best biased, at worst completely astroturf.
The only subs that I think still have mostly legit users are municipal subs (which still get targeted by bots when anything political comes up) and hobby subs where people show their works or discuss things.
I sometimes envy the illiterate.
At least they cannot read this.
I wonder if they have run the analytics on how many users are doing that. I would love to see that number.
> only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT‑4o each day.
If the 800MAU still holds, that's 800k people.
well now you can unlock an 18+ version for sexual role-play so i guess its the other way around
[flagged]
It's a growing market, although it might be because of shifting goal posts. I had a friend whose son was placed in French immersion (a language he doesn't speak at all). From what I was understanding, he was getting up and walking around in kindergarten and was labelled as mentally divergent; his teachers apparently suggested to his mother that he see a doctor.
(Strangely these "mental illnesses" and school problems went away after he switched to an English language school, must be a miracle)
I assume the loneliness epidemic is producing similar cases.
> I had a friend whose son was placed in French immersion (a language he doesn't speak at all).
In my entire french immersion Kindergarden class, there was a total of one child who already spoke French. I don't think the fact that he didn't speak the language is the concern.
In what sense is it "immersion" if there are only one or two French speakers in the room (the teacher and an assistant?)??
They control reddit and used to control twitter.
There is/was an interesting period where "normies" were joining twitter en-masse, and adopted many of the denizens ideas as normal widespread ideas. Kinda like going on a camping trip at "the lake" because you heard it's fun and not realizing that everyone else on the trip is part of a semi-deranged cult.
The outsized effect of this was journalists thinking these people on twitter were accurate representations of what society on the whole was thinking.
good observation. twitch has even more loons.
wasn't there a trend on twitter to have a bio/signature with a bunch of mental illness acronyms?
Those people need to be uploaded into the Matrix and the data servers sent far, deep into space.
I used https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-4.1 for grammar checking, it was great. No newer ChatGPT models came close to being as responsive and good. ChatGPT 5.2 thinks I want it to write essays about grammar.
Any suggestions?
There will be a lot of mentally unwell people unhappy with this, but this is a huge net positive decision, thank goodness.
> In the API, there are no changes at this time
Curios where this is going to go.
One of the big arguments for local models is we can't trust providers to maintain ongoing access the models you validated and put into production. Even if you run hosted models, running open ones means you can switch providers.
I actually tried GPT 4.1 for the first time a few hours ago(1).
I spent about half an hour trying to coax it in "plan mode" in IntelliJ, and it kept spitting out these generic ideas of what it was going to do, not really planning at all.
And when I asked it to execute the plan.. it just created some generic DTO and said "now all that remains is <the entire plan>".
Absolutely worst experience with an AI agent so far, not to say that my overall experience has been terrific.
1) Our plan for Claude Opus 4.5 "ran out" or something.
If they were to retire gpt 4.1 series from API that would be a major deal breaker. For structured outputs it is more predictable and significantly better because it does not have the reasoning step baked in.
I've heard great things about the mixtral structured outputs capabilities but haven't had a chance to run my evals on them.
If 4.1 is dropped from API that's the first course of action.
Also 5 series doesn't have fine tuning capabilities and it's unclear how it would work if the reasoning step is involved
will this nuke my old convos?
opus 4.5 is better at gpt on everything except code execution (but with pro you get a lot of claude code usage) and if they nuke all my old convos I'll prob downgrade from pro to freee
Not that I’m aware. Models can be fairly seamlessly switched even mid-conversation, so this is unlikely to affect history.
GPT 4o is still my favorite model
I had started using it again through Open WebUI. If it's gone, I'll probably switch to GLM-4.7 completely.
I wish they would keep 4.1 around for a bit longer. One of the downsides of the current reasoning based training regimens is a significant decrease in creativity. And chat trained AIs were already quite "meh" at creative writing to begin with. 4.1 was the last of its breed.
So we'll have to wait until "creativity" is solved.
Side note: I've been wondering lately about a way to bring creativity back to these thinking models. For creative writing tasks you could add the original, pretrained model as a tool call. So the thinking model could ask for its completions and/or query it and get back N variations. The pretrained model's completions will be much more creative and wild, though often incoherent (think back to the GPT-3 days). The thinking model can then review these and use them to synthesize a coherent, useful result. Essentially giving us the best of both worlds. All the benefits of a thinking model, while still giving it access to "contained" creativity.
My theory, based on what I would see with non-thinking models, is that as soon as you start detailing something too much (ie: not just "speak in the style of X" but more like "speak in the style of X with [a list of adjectives detailing the style of X]" they would loose creativity, would not fit the style very well anymore etc. I don't know how things have evolved with new training techniques etc. but I suspected that overthinking their tasks by detailing too much what they have to do can lower quality in some models for creative tasks.
I also terribly regret the retirement of 4.1. From my own personal usage, for code or normal tasks, I clearly noticed a huge gap in degraded performance between 4.1 and 5.1/5.2.
4.1 was the best so far. With straight to the point answers, and most of the time correct. Especially for code related questions. 5.1/5.2 on their side would a lot more easily hallucinate stupid responses or stupid code snippet totally not what was expected.
Have you tried the relatively recent Personalities feature? I wonder if that makes a difference.
(I have no idea. LLMs are infinite code monkeys on infinite typewriters for me, with occasional “how do I evolve this Pokémon’ utility. But worth a shot.)
From the blog post (twice):
> creative ideation
At first I had no idea what this meant! So I asked my friend Miss Chatty [1] and we had an interesting conversation about it:
https://chatgpt.com/share/697bf761-990c-8012-9dd1-6ca1d5cc34...
[1] You may know her as ChatGPT, but I figure all the other AIs have fun human-sounding names, so she deserves one too.
I do find it interesting to see how people interact with AI as I think it is quite a personal preference. Is this how you use AI all the time? Do you appreciate the sycophancy, does it bother you, do you not notice it? From your question it seems you would prefer a blog post in plainer language, avoiding "marketing speak", but if a person spoke to me like Miss Chatty spoke to you I would be convinced I'm talking to a salesperson or marketing agent.
That is a great question!
You are absolutely right to ask about it!
(How did I do with channeling Miss Chatty's natural sycophancy?)
Anyway, I do use AI for other things, such as...
And that's just from the last few weeks.In other words, pretty much anything someone might interact with an AI - or a fellow human - about.
About the last one (John White Geary), that discussion started with my question about actresses in the "Pick a little, talk a little" song from The Music Man movie, and then went on to how John White Geary bridged the transition from Mexican to US rule, as did others like José Antonio Carrillo:
https://chatgpt.com/share/697c5f28-7c18-8012-96fc-219b7c6961...
If I could sum it all up, this is the kind of freewheeling conversation with ChatGPT and other AIs that I value.
It's really an interesting insight into people's personalities. Far more than their Google search history. Which is why everyone wants their GPT chats burned to the ground after they die.
Oh good. Not in the API. The 4o-mini is super cheap and useful for a bunch of things I do (evaluating post vector-search for relevancy).
If people want an AI as a boyfriend at least they should use one that is open source.
If you disagree on something you can also train a lora.
I think this kind of thing is a pretty strong argument for the entire open source model ecosystem, not just open weights but open data and the whole gamut.
OK, everyone is (rightly) bringing up that relatively small but really glaringly prominent AI boyfriend subreddit.
But I think a lot more people are using LLMs for relationship surrogates than that (pretty bonkers) subreddit would suggest. Character AI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character.ai) seems quite popular, as do the weird fake friend things in Meta products, and Grok’s various personality mode and very creepy AI girlfriends.
I find this utterly bizarre. LLMs are peer coders in a box for me. I care about Claude Code, and that’s about it. But I realize I am probably in the vast minority.
We're very echo-chambered here. That graph OpenAI released had coding at 4% or something.
I remembered it being higher, but you are correct. All “technical help” (coding + data analysis + math) is 7.5%, with coding only being 4.2% as of June 2025 [0]. Note that there is a separate (sub)category of seeking information -> specific information that’s at 18.3%, I presume this could include design and architecture questions that don’t involve code, but I could be wrong.
[0]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34255/w342...
I hope they won't chop gpt-4o-mini soon because it's fast and accurate for API usage.
Would be cool if they'd release the weights for these models so users could now use them locally.
Why would someone want to spend half a million dollars on GPUs and components (if not more) to run one year old models that genuinely aren't useful? You can't self host trillion parameter models unless you own a datacenter lol (or want to just light money on fire).
Are the mini / omni models really trillion parameter models?
I don't think so, but you're still looking at a giant investment that can't really be justified for their capability.
To do AI research!!!!!!!
They'd only do that if they were some kind of open ai company /s
gpt-oss is pretty great tbh - one of the better all-around local models for knowledge and grounding.
Everyone keeps saying that but I’ve found it to be incredibly weak in the real world every single time I’ve reached for it. I think it’s benchmaxxed to an extent.
lol :)
What about the Advanced Voice feature, has this been updated to 5.x models yet?
I have stopped using ChatGPT in favor of Gemini. Mostly you need LLMs for factual stuff and sometimes to draft bits of code here and there. I use Google with Gemini for the first part and I am a huge fan of codex for the second part.
Anyone knows if finetuned models using gpt-4 are getting retired as well ?
This wasn't good at all. This 4 o was a model I was preparing 3 posts for every day, and I couldn't get the same performance with GPT 5. It's disappointing.
Damn, some of my prompts worked better on 4o than the more recent models
Which one is the AI boyfriend model? Tumblr, Twitter, and reddit will go crazy
4o is the most popular one for that
[flagged]
My VSCode's built-in chat has 4o and 4.1 as the only options; will there be an update for that?
This is just for the web interface, the API is staying for now.
2 weeks notice to migrate to a different style of model (“normal” 4.1-mini to reasoning 5.1) is bad form.
Misread the post - it doesn’t include the API
It’s also not four weeks, they’ve been deprecated api models for some time now.
> with only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT‑4o each day.
LOL WHAT?! I'm 0.1% of users? I'm certain part of the issue is it takes 3-clicks to switch to GPT-4o and it has to be done each time the page is loaded.
> that they preferred GPT‑4o’s conversational style and warmth.
Uh.. yeah maybe. But more importantly, GPT-4o gave better answers.
Zero acknowledgement about how terrible GPT-5 was when it was first released. It has since improved but it's not clear to me it's on-par with GPT-4o. Thinking mode is just too slow to be useful and so GPT-4o still seems better and faster.
Oh well, it'll be missed.
I agree - I use 4o via the API, simply because it answers so quickly. Its answers are usually pretty good on programming topics. I don't engage in chit-chat with AI models, so it's not really about the personality (which seems to be the main framing people are talking about), just the speed.
Sora + OpenAI voice Cloning + AdultGPT = Virtual Girlfriend/Boyfriend
(Upgrade for only 1999 per month)
Does this mean they're also retiring Standard Voice Mode?
5.2 is back to being a sycophantic hallucinating mess for most use cases - I've anecdotally caught it out on many of the sessions I've had where it apologizes "You're absolutely right... that used to be the case but as of the latest version as you pointed out, it no longer is." when it never existed in the first place. It's just not good.
On the other hand - 5.0-nano has been great for fast (and cheap) quick requests and there doesn't seem to be a viable alternative today if they're sunsetting 5.0 models.
I really don't know how they're measuring improvements in the model since things seem to have been getting progressively worse with each release since 4o/o4 - Gemini and Opus still show the occasional hallucination or lack of grounding but both readily spend time fact-checking/searching before making an educated guess.
I've had chatgpt blatantly lie to me and say there are several community posts and reddit threads about an issue then after failing to find that, asked it where it found those and it flat out said "oh yeah it looks like those don't exist"
That’s been my experience and has lead to hours of wasted time. It’s faster for me to read through docs and watch YouTube.
Even if I submit the documentation or reference links they are completely ignored.
That’s really going to upset the crazies.
Despite 4o being one of the worst models on the market, they loved it. Probably because it was the most insane and delusional. You could get it to talk about really fucked up shit. It would happily tell you that you are the messiah.
The reaction to its original removal on Instagram Reels, r/ChatGPT, etc., was genuinely so weird and creepy. I didn't realise before this how many people had genuine parasocial (?) relationships with these LLMs.
It was the first model I used that was half decent at coding. Everyone remembers their gateway drug.
I was mostly using 4o for academic searches and planning. It was the best model for me. Based on the context I was giving and questions I was asking, 4o was the most the consistent model.
It used to get things wrong for sure but it was predictable. Also I liked the tone like everyone else. I stopped using ChatGPT after they removed 4o. Recently, I have started using the newer GPT-5 models (got free one month). Better than before but not quite. Acts way over smart haha
I wonder if it will still be up on Azure? How much you think I can make if I setup 4o under a domain like yourgirlfriendis.ai or w/e
Note: I wouldnt actually, I find it terrible to prey on people.
ChatGPT Made Me Delusional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRjgNgJms3Q
Should be essential watching for anyone that uses these things.
[dead]
I can't see o3 in my model selector as well?
RIP
They should open source GPT-4o.
I still don’t know how openAI thought it was a good idea to have a model named "4o" AND a model named "o4", unless the goal was intentional confusion
Even ChatGPT (and certainly Google) confuses the names.
I'm sure there is some internal/academic reason for them, but from an outside observer simply horrible.
Wasn't "ChatGPT" itself only supposed to be a research/academic name, until it unexpectedly broke containment and they ended up having to roll with it? The naming was cursed from the start.
How many times have you noticed people confusing the name itself: ChatGBT, ChatGTP etc.
We're the technical crowd cursed and blinded by knowledge.
When picking a fight with product marketing, just don't.
Considering how many people say ChatGTP too
GTP goes forward from the middle, teeth, then lips, as compared to GPT which goes middle, lips, teeth; you'll see this pattern happen with a lot of words in linguistic history
I still don't like how French people don't call it "chat j'ai pété".
The other day I heard ChatGBD.
Have you heard Boris Johnson's version?
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/JAVMEs5CG1Y
I'm gonna watch this again about 5 times because it's so fucking funny
The comments have their own overdose of deliciousness. That click to look at them, never disappoints :-)
This one was great hahaha
MY favourite is ChatJippiddy
Do you watch primagen by instance?
A fellow Primagen viewer spotted.
The Primeagen :).
Or just "gippity" for short.
ChagGDP because a country worth of money was spent to train it.
I’ve been hearing that consistently from a friend, I gave up on correcting them because “ChatGPT” just wouldn’t stick
Even more than that, I've seen a lot of people confuse 4 and 4o, probably because 4o sounds like a shorthand for 4.0 which would be the same thing as 4.
Come to think of it, maybe they had a play on 4o being “40”, and o4-mini being “04”, and having to append the “mini” to bring home the message of 04<40
It's almost always marketing and some stupid idea someone there had. I don't know why non-technical people try and claim so much ownership over versioning. You nearly always end up with these ridiculous outcomes.
"I know! Let's restart the version numbering for no good reason!" becomes DOOM (2016), Mortal Kombat 1 (2025), Battlefield 1 (2016), Xbox One (not to be confused with the original Xbox 1)
As another example, look at how much of a trainwreck USB 3 has become
Or how Nvidia restarted Geforce card numbering
Xbox should be in the hall of fame for terrible names.
There's also Xbox One X, which is not in the X series. Did I say that right? Playstation got the version numbers right. I couldn't make names as incomprehensible as Xbox if I tried.
Rumor has it they were jelly because the Playstation 3 had one higher version number than what would have been the Xbox 2, so it became the Xbox 360 instead. And then got further off the rails when its replacement arrived
"4o" was bad to begin with, as "four-oh" is a common verbalization of "4.0".
They will have to update the openai. Com footer I guess
Latest Advancements
GPT-5
OpenAI o3
OpenAI o4-mini
GPT-4o
GPT-4o mini
Sora
Theo can sleep tonight.