[HN Gopher] Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o...
___________________________________________________________________
Retiring GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and OpenAI o4-mini in
ChatGPT
Author : rd
Score : 110 points
Date : 2026-01-29 21:02 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| __loam wrote:
| Last time they tried to do this they got huge push back from the
| AI boyfriend people lol
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| I wonder if they have run the analytics on how many users are
| doing that. I would love to see that number.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| > only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT-4o each day.
|
| If the 800MAU still holds, that's 800k people.
| simonw wrote:
| /r/MyBoyfriendIsAI https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/ is
| a _whole thing_. It 's not a joke subreddit.
| bananaflag wrote:
| 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.
| pxc wrote:
| I dunno. Tbf that subreddit has a combination of
| - 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.
| nomel wrote:
| > 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.
| bananaflag wrote:
| 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.
| nomel wrote:
| 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?
| pxc wrote:
| 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.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| IIRC you'll get modded or banned for being critical of the
| use case. Which is their "right", but it's freaking weird.
| chasd00 wrote:
| 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.
| ragazzina wrote:
| >It's not a joke subreddit.
|
| Spend a day on Reddit and you'll quickly realize many
| subreddits are just filled with lies.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 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.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Those people need to be uploaded into the Matrix and the data
| servers sent far, deep into space.
| leumon wrote:
| well now you can unlock an 18+ version for sexual role-play so
| i guess its the other way around
| ora-600 wrote:
| I can't see o3 in my model selector as well?
|
| RIP
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| 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.
| BeetleB wrote:
| It was the first model I used that was half decent at coding.
| Everyone remembers their gateway drug.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| 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.
| lifetimerubyist wrote:
| ChatGPT Made Me Delusional:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRjgNgJms3Q
|
| Should be essential watching for anyone that uses these things.
| patrickmcnamara wrote:
| 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.
| pks016 wrote:
| 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
| simonw wrote:
| > [...] the vast majority of usage has shifted to GPT-5.2, with
| only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT-4o each day.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| What's the default model when a random user goes to use the
| chatgpt website or app?
| mrec wrote:
| 5.2 in the website. You can see what was used for a specific
| response by hovering over the refresh icon at the end.
| AlexeyBrin wrote:
| On the paid version it is 5.2.
| bananaflag wrote:
| 5.2.
|
| You can go to chatgpt.com and ask "what model are you" (it
| doesn't hallucinate on this).
| SecretDreams wrote:
| 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.
| johndough wrote:
| > (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.)
| razodactyl wrote:
| Confabulating* If you were hallucinating we would be more
| amused :)
| lifetimerubyist wrote:
| won't somebody think of the goonettes?!
| deciduously wrote:
| This was not a word I was prepared to learn about today.
| navigate8310 wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/myboyfriendisai/top?t=all
| fpgaminer wrote:
| 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)
| arrowsmith wrote:
| What about 5.1 do you prefer over 5.2?
| fpgaminer wrote:
| 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.
| adamiscool8 wrote:
| 0.1% of users is not necessarily 0.1% of conversations...
| jedbrooke wrote:
| 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
| afro88 wrote:
| Considering how many people say ChatGTP too
| uh_uh wrote:
| The other day I heard ChatGBD.
| ben_w wrote:
| Have you heard Boris Johnson's version?
|
| https://m.youtube.com/shorts/JAVMEs5CG1Y
| lichenwarp wrote:
| I'm gonna watch this again about 5 times because it's so
| fucking funny
| mandeepj wrote:
| The comments have their own overdose of deliciousness.
| That click to look at them, never disappoints :-)
| razodactyl wrote:
| This one was great hahaha
| tweakimp wrote:
| MY favourite is ChatJippiddy
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Do you watch primagen by instance?
|
| A fellow Primagen viewer spotted.
| lifetimerubyist wrote:
| Or just "gippity" for short.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| The Primeagen :).
| bee_rider wrote:
| ChagGDP because a country worth of money was spent to train
| it.
| Insanity wrote:
| I've been hearing that consistently from a friend, I gave up
| on correcting them because "ChatGPT" just wouldn't stick
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| I still don't like how French people don't call it "chat j'ai
| pete".
| adzm wrote:
| 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
| cryptoz wrote:
| 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.
| mimischi wrote:
| 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
| Someone1234 wrote:
| 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.
| jsheard wrote:
| Wasn't "ChatGPT" itself only supposed to be a
| research/academic name, until it accidentally broke
| containment and they ended up having to roll with it? The
| naming was cursed from the start.
| nipponese wrote:
| When picking a fight with product marketing, just don't.
| razodactyl wrote:
| How many times have you noticed people confusing the name
| itself: ChatGBT, ChatGTP etc.
|
| We're the technical crowd cursed and blinded by knowledge.
| recursive wrote:
| "4o" was bad to begin with, as "four-oh" is a common
| verbalization of "4.0".
| pdntspa wrote:
| 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
| recursive wrote:
| 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.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| There will be a lot of mentally unwell people unhappy with this,
| but this is a huge net positive decision, thank goodness.
| haunter wrote:
| Which one is the AI boyfriend model? Tumblr, Twitter, and reddit
| will go crazy
| goldenarm wrote:
| 4o is the most popular one for that
| NewsaHackO wrote:
| >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 model
| 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
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| 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.
| toss1 wrote:
| Sounds both true and interesting. Any particularly wild
| and/or illuminating examples of which you can share more
| detail?
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| 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.
| jaggederest wrote:
| 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.
| cm2012 wrote:
| This is why I work in direct performance advertising. Our
| work reveals the truth!
| make3 wrote:
| 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.
| marrone12 wrote:
| 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.
| 12345ieee wrote:
| 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.
| losteric wrote:
| Advertising always seems like a prisoner's dilemma. If no
| one advertised, people would still buy things.
| q3k wrote:
| Not having my job would be a tiny price to pay compared
| to the benefit of living in a world with no
| advertisements.
| DetroitThrow wrote:
| >it's a foundational piece of it
|
| No it's not
| cm2012 wrote:
| Exploitative ads are a small minority. I also think
| gambling advertising should be banned.
| make3 wrote:
| 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.
| 9x39 wrote:
| 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.
| cornonthecobra wrote:
| Put on a good show, offer something novel, and people will
| gleefully march right off a cliff while admiring their shiny
| new purchase.
| PlatoIsADisease wrote:
| 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.
| cj wrote:
| 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.
| pdntspa wrote:
| 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
| josephg wrote:
| 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.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| 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.
| GaggiX wrote:
| 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.
| jaggederest wrote:
| 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.
| fpgaminer wrote:
| 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.
| MillionOClock wrote:
| 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.
| perardi wrote:
| 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
| Pokemon' utility. But worth a shot.)
| tom1337 wrote:
| Would be cool if they'd release the weights for these models so
| users could now use them locally.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| They'd only do that if they were some kind of open ai company
| /s
| amelius wrote:
| lol :)
| tgtweak wrote:
| gpt-oss is pretty great tbh - one of the better all-around
| local models for knowledge and grounding.
| IhateAI wrote:
| 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).
| tom1337 wrote:
| Are the mini / omni models really trillion parameter models?
| IhateAI wrote:
| I don't think so, but you're still looking at a giant
| investment that can't really be justified for their
| capability.
| jostmey wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| Why not Claude?
| jostmey wrote:
| I personally find Claude the best at coding, but it's
| usefulness doesn't seem to extend to scientific research and
| writing
| esperent wrote:
| 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.
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| Because I'm sick of paying $20 for an hour of claude before
| it throttles me.
| azan_ wrote:
| 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.
| tgtweak wrote:
| Very curious for what use cases you're finding gemini
| unusable.
| azan_ wrote:
| 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.
| double0jimb0 wrote:
| In my experience with Gemini, I find it incapable of not
| hallucinating.
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| 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!
| PlatoIsADisease wrote:
| nah bruh you are just imagining it.
|
| Its just as good as ever /s
| orphea wrote:
| Have you had a chance to compare with Gemini 3?
| leumon wrote:
| > 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
| kace91 wrote:
| 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?
| jandrese wrote:
| If you don't think the potential market for AI sexbots is
| enormous you have not paid attention to humanity.
| leumon wrote:
| 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
| jacquesm wrote:
| 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.
| elevation wrote:
| 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.)
| robotnikman wrote:
| There is a subreddit called /r/myboyfriendisAI, you can look
| through it and see for yourself.
| chilmers wrote:
| 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.
| thayne wrote:
| If your goal is to make money, sure. If your goal is to make
| AI safe, not so much.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| It will be an even bigger market when robotics are
| sufficiently advanced.
| palmotea wrote:
| 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.
| georgemcbay wrote:
| > 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).
| chilmers wrote:
| 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?
| thayne wrote:
| 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.
| GoatInGrey wrote:
| 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.
| chasd00 wrote:
| 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".
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| hate to say it but I'm pretty excited to try out those
| features.
| europeanNyan wrote:
| 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.
| tgtweak wrote:
| 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.
| toxic72 wrote:
| 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
| jackblemming wrote:
| They should open source GPT-4o.
| ClassAndBurn wrote:
| 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
| tgtweak wrote:
| 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"
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| 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.
| perardi wrote:
| 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.
| razodactyl wrote:
| We're very echo-chambered here. That graph OpenAI released had
| coding at 4% or something.
| siquick wrote:
| 2 weeks notice to migrate to a different style of model ("normal"
| 4.1-mini to reasoning 5.1) is bad form.
| htrp wrote:
| Sora + OpenAI voice Cloning + AdultGPT = Virtual
| Girlfriend/Boyfriend
|
| (Upgrade for only 1999 per month)
| thedudeabides5 wrote:
| 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
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-29 23:00 UTC)