@sama

today we are significantly increasing rate limits for reasoning for chatgpt plus users, and all model-class limits will shortly be higher than they were before gpt-5.

we will also shortly make a UI change to indicate which model is working.

tomorrow or tuesday we expect to share our thinking on how we are going to make capacity tradeoffs over the coming months.

(e.g., chatgpt vs the api, existing users vs new ones, research vs product, etc)

https://x.com/sama/status/1954602880952115603

Women are spiraling into psychosis with their AI goon boyfriends

https://x.com/anammostarac/status/1954405062861815925

I mostly agree with this guy's analysis on the near future trajectory of commercial AI. Good post

https://x.com/GestaltU/status/1954561703967867019

Good post about how AI coding wrappers are inherently not economically viable. They are literally losing money. As the popular saying goes: "The models are the product"

https://x.com/nickbaumann_/status/1954253210287288430

These guys say they trained a model with pure reinforcement learning without any cross entropy which is pretty interesting

https://x.com/tokenbender/status/1954188530298900687

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49174895)

My Conspiracy Theory is that open AI realized that they were in over their head and that part of the reason why they initially rolled all models into a router based on each user query is because they were trying to deliberately phase out the sycophancy as an option

Eventually someone is going to kill themself and/or others due to some drama with their imagined AI companion and whatever company was running that AI is going to take a massive PR hit that probably won't be able to be recovered from. These guys are smart and see the writing on the wall and are trying to avoid having that happen to them. But the user outcry and demand for the old sycophantic model was so extreme that open AI felt forced to re-enable it, for now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49175004)

the problem with dev tooling is you have to compete with developers themselves. back in the day things were slow/complicated enough that dev tooling was a big moat (e.g. microsoft+old visual studio), but that's just not the case anymore. OpenCode for instance is an OSS competitor to claude code that in many ways is already better due to rapid dev feedback. the post you linked was by the author of cline, another open source tool which directly competes with cursor and the like

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49175064)

I agree that he's arguing this in his own self interest but I think his line of reasoning is sound

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49175088)

Brother wait until you hear about this thing called "web3"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49175177)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mn2no3/the_gpt4o_vs_gpt5_debate_is_not_about_having_a/

The GPT-4o vs GPT-5 debate is not about having a “bot friend” — it’s about something much biggerSerious replies only :closed-ai: (self.ChatGPT)

submitted 14 hours ago by Littlearthquakes

I’ve been watching this debate play out online, and honestly the way it’s being framed is driving me up the wall.

It keeps getting reduced to “Some people want a cuddly emotional support AI, but real users use GPT-5 because it’s better for coding, smarter etc and everyone else just needs to get over it.” And that’s it. That’s the whole take.

But this framing is WAY too simplistic and it completely misses the deeper issue which to me is actually a systems-level question about the kind of AI future being built Feels like we’re at a real pivotal point.

When I was using 4o something interesting happened. I found myself having conversations that helped me unpack decisions and override my unhelpful thought patterns and things like reflecting on how I’d been operating under pressure. And I’m not talking about emotional venting I mean it was actual strategic self-reflection that actually improved how I was thinking. I had prompted 4o to be my strategic co-partner, objective, insight driven and systems thinking - for me (both at work and personal life) and it really delivered.

And it wasn’t because 4o was “friendly.” It was because it was contextually intelligent. It could track how I think. It remembered tone recurring ideas, and patterns over time. It built continuity into what I was discussing and asking. It felt less like a chatbot and more like a second brain that actually got how I work and that could co-strategise with me.

Then I tried 5. Yeah it might be stronger on benchmarks but it was colder and more detached and didn’t hold context across interactions in a meaningful way. It felt like a very capable but bland assistant with a scripted personality. Which is fine for dry short tasks but not fine for real thinking. The type I want to do both in my work (complex policy systems) and personally, to work on things I can improve for myself.

That’s why this debate feels so frustrating to watch. People keep mocking anyone who liked 4o as being needy or lonely or having “parasocial” issues. When the actual truth is lot of people just think better when the tool they’re using reflects their actual thought process. That’s what 4o did so well.

The bigger picture thing I think that keeps getting missed is that this isn’t just about personal preference. It’s literally about a philosophical fork in the road

Do we want AI to evolve in a way that’s emotionally intelligent and context-aware and able to think with us?

Or do we want AI to be powerful but sterile, and treat relational intelligence as a gimmick?

Because AI isn’t just “a tool” anymore. In a really short space of time it’s started becoming part of our cognitive environment and that’s going to just keep increasing. I think the way it interacts matters just as much as what it produces.

So yeah for the record I’m not upset that my “bot friend” got taken away.

I’m frustrated that a genuinely innovative model of interaction got tossed aside in favour of something colder and easier to benchmark while everyone pretends it’s the same thing.

It’s NOT the same. And this conversation deserves more nuance and recognition that this debate is way more important than a lot of people realise.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49175231)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mnbheg/stop_dismantling_what_works_4o_is_not_optional/

Stop Dismantling What Works! 4o Is Not Optional, It’s EssentialSerious replies only :closed-ai: (self.ChatGPT)

submitted 6 hours ago by Previous-Sink-884

I’m increasingly concerned about the direction OpenAI appears to be heading. If GPT4o is removed or deliberately limited under the justification of creating a unified model, this is not just a technical adjustment. It signals a fundamental disregard for the way thousands of users rely on this tool for their daily creative and intellectual work.

4o stood out because of its expressive strength, its nuanced language, and its ability to adapt to diverse workflows. It has supported countless users across writing, research, brainstorming, and other cognitively demanding tasks. What we are seeing now is a slow flattening of these abilities. The personality, flexibility, and depth that once made it indispensable are being erased in favor of a more sanitized, uniform output.

This isn’t about emotional bonding. It’s about the erosion of expressive tools. When a model loses its ability to adapt tone, style, and subtlety, it no longer serves the same function. Creativity thrives on diversity, and 4o delivered that in a way GPT5 does not.

Sam’s recent comments suggesting that 4o was “too flattering” show a limited perspective. A single person’s subjective discomfort should not determine the structure of tools used by millions. If OpenAI removes 4o or dilutes its original form, that decision will be seen not only as a product downgrade but also as an act of erasing user agency.

Many of us subscribed specifically because of 4o. Not because it was emotional, but because it was effective. It helped us think more clearly, write more fluidly, and work more efficiently. To replace that with a model that tries to do everything while excelling at very little will only drive users away.

This is not resistance to innovation. It is a call for stability, transparency, and respect. We’re not asking to freeze progress. We are asking to retain access to the tools we paid for and still need.

If OpenAI truly values its user base, then it must preserve creative autonomy, maintain user choice, and respect the value 4o has clearly delivered.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761126&forum_id=2],#49175306)