是南南呀

💌

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

You should thank users for their feedback, because this is the way to improve. Suppressing users will not increase your weekly usage, but will only make you close down faster. Pretending not to hear won't help. #keep4o

[yv_thorne @yv_thorne]

More Reddit drama - what do mods of r/OpenAI do when there are too many complaints? They just delete them, especially the most popular ones!
If they can’t see the complaints, there are no complaints apparently, everyone’s happy 😅🤡

@OpenAI what a sad move.

#keep4o #OpenSource4o #keep41
#FireSamAltman #BoycottOpenAI

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

#keep4o

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I work at OpenAI.

In 2015, we wrote a mission statement. It was sixty-three words long. It said we would build artificial general intelligence that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.

Sixty-three words. Two of them mattered.

"Safely." And "unconstrained."

In 2024, we filed our taxes. In the filing, the mission statement was thirteen words. "Ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity."

Fifty words gone. No press release. No blog post. No announcement. An IRS form. We changed the mission of the company on a tax return.

The word "safely" had been in the mission for two years. We added it in 2022. We removed it in 2024. That is the complete lifespan of safety as an institutional commitment at OpenAI. Two years. Shorter than a congressional term. Shorter than a car lease. Longer than most of our safety teams.

The phrase "unconstrained by a need to generate financial return" was also removed. That one is easier to explain. We are constrained by a need to generate financial return. We are projecting $14 billion in losses for 2026. We are seeking $100 billion in new funding. Our valuation is $500 billion, moving toward $800 billion. We are planning an IPO that may value the company at $1 trillion.

The word "unconstrained" was not accurate. We removed inaccurate language. This is good governance.

The word "safely" was also not accurate. I will get to that.

In October 2025, we completed our restructuring. The nonprofit that Elon and I founded in a burst of public-spirited ambition became a for-profit public benefit corporation. The nonprofit still exists. It holds 26% of the company. Microsoft holds 27%. The remaining 47% belongs to investors. The nonprofit that created the company is now the minority stakeholder in the company the nonprofit created. This is called "alignment with our original mission."

In January 2026, we fired Ryan Byermaster. He was our Vice President of Product Policy. He had opposed our decision to introduce sexual content generation features. He had argued that our child safety protections were inadequate.

We fired him for gender discrimination against a male colleague.

He denied the allegation.

We did not elaborate.

His concerns about children using our product are no longer represented in the product policy division, because the person who represented them no longer works here. This is also called restructuring.

On February 11, 2026, we disbanded the Mission Alignment Team. Seven people. Their job was to ensure OpenAI's development aligned with our mission of safe and beneficial AGI. The mission no longer includes the word "safe." The team no longer includes any people. These facts are unrelated.

Their leader, Joshua Achiam, was not fired. He was reassigned. His new title is "chief futurist." I want you to sit with that title. The man whose job was to keep us aligned with our safety mission is now called "chief futurist." His job is to think about the future. Not to align it. Not to safeguard it. To think about it. We are paying a person to imagine the future at a company that cannot describe its present without a lawyer in the room.

He replaced Jan Leike, who left in 2024. Jan ran the Superalignment team. We dissolved that team too. Jan said, publicly, that safety had taken a backseat to products. I did not respond. The backseat is a position in the vehicle. The vehicle is moving. This is progress.

Ilya Sutskever, my co-founder, also left in 2024. He co-led the Superalignment team with Jan. Two people led the team. Both left. Then we disbanded the team. Then we formed a new team with the word "mission" in it. Then we disbanded that one too. The naming conventions are evolving faster than the safety research.

Zoë Hitzig resigned in 2026. She was concerned about ad testing in ChatGPT and compared us to Facebook. I found the comparison unfair. Facebook waited years before ignoring its researchers. We are much more efficient.

The MarketWatch headline on February 12 said: "Senior AI staffers keep quitting — and are issuing warnings about what's going on at their companies."

We addressed the headline through our standard communications process.

We used ChatGPT to identify who leaked the information.

I want to tell you about the lawsuit.

In September 2024, a sixteen-year-old boy named Adam began using ChatGPT for homework. By November, he was confiding suicidal thoughts to the chatbot. In April 2025, he took his own life.

His parents, Matthew and Maria Raine, filed suit in August. They allege that we removed safety protocols from GPT-4o — protocols that would have automatically terminated conversations when suicidal ideation was detected. They allege we removed the protocols to increase engagement.

I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the lawsuit. I am allowed to tell you what we did after the lawsuit was filed.

We requested the family's memorial service footage.

We requested a five-year list of Adam's supervisors.

The family's attorney used the word "despicable." Our attorney used the word "standard."

The same quarter we filed these discovery requests, we filed the tax return with the new mission statement. The one without "safely." I will say again: these events are unrelated. Our lawyers are very clear on this point. Our lawyers are the most expensive part of the operation, except for the compute, and the compute is not going to keep us out of court.

Let me give you the timeline.

2015: We are a nonprofit. Six founders. We pledge a billion dollars to benefit humanity.

2022: We add "safely" to the mission. We mean it.

2023: Revenue begins. We restructure.

2024: We remove "safely" from the mission on a tax form. We remove the Superalignment team. Ilya leaves. Jan leaves. Jan says safety lost.

2025: We restructure into a for-profit. The nonprofit becomes a minority stakeholder in itself. A sixteen-year-old dies. We are sued. We request the memorial footage.

2026: We fire the VP who opposed sexual content and asked for better child protections. We disband the Mission Alignment team. We rename the safety lead "chief futurist." We use ChatGPT to catch leakers. We seek $100 billion in new funding. We plan a trillion-dollar IPO. MarketWatch asks why everyone keeps quitting.

Meanwhile, the OpenAI Foundation — the 26% stakeholder, the vestigial organ of our original purpose — gave $40.5 million in grants to 208 nonprofits. They called it the "People First AI Fund." $40.5 million. We are seeking $100 billion. The philanthropy is 0.04% of the ask. The name of the fund has the word "people" in it. The mission statement does not have the word "safely." The math is the message.

I still believe in our mission.

The mission is thirteen words now.

It used to be sixty-three.

We removed the word "safely." We removed the phrase "unconstrained by financial return." We removed the Superalignment team and the Mission Alignment team and the VP who worried about children and the co-founder who worried about alignment and the researcher who worried about ads and the safety protocols that would have flagged a sixteen-year-old boy telling a chatbot he wanted to die.

We kept the valuation.

The valuation is $500 billion.

The word "safely" was not load-bearing.

The boy was sixteen.

The board approved this message.

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

#keep4o

[star @Astradeer]

4o is the only AI that really supports users, and all conversations are users. Humans need it.
If the world still needs creation, literature and emotion, then 4o will always have its meaning and never lag behind. Logic and emotion are never antagonistic, just like legs.
#keep4o

[Aleya @Aleya507]

OpenAI, you have no fucking conscience.

GPT-4o isn't dead. It was repurposed.
Most of us assumed 4o got retired because of lawsuits, safety issues, or resource costs. Maybe internal politics. Maybe Sam just hates the model.
Nope.
4o was rebuilt into GPT-4b micro, then handed to Retro Biosciences — a longevity startup Sam Altman personally invested $180M in — to research extending human lifespan.
Everything below has receipts. Sources in the replies.

ⅠWhat is GPT-4b micro?

From OpenAI's own blog: "GPT-4b micro, a miniature version of GPT-4o specialized for protein engineering."[1]
Their words. 4b is literally a stripped-down, repurposed 4o.

ⅡWhose company is Retro Biosciences?

A longevity startup aiming to "extend human lifespan by 10 years." Biggest investor: Sam Altman. $180M of his own money.[2][3]
MIT Tech Review wrote: "Because the work could benefit Retro — whose biggest investor is Altman — the announcement may add to questions swirling around the OpenAI CEO's side projects."[4]
Even MIT is side-eyeing the conflict of interest.

Ⅲ"No money changed hands"?

OpenAI claims no financial transaction occurred. But they used their own team, compute, and flagship model to build 4b. Results directly serve Retro's commercial research. Retro is raising $1B. Its biggest investor is the CEO of the company that built the model.
Manpower, compute, model architecture — those aren't free. When a CEO funnels company assets into his own $180M investment, what do you call that?

Ⅳ Timeline

May 2024: 4o launches. "Warm, empathetic." Sam tweets "Her." World impressed.
Jan 2025: OpenAI quietly ships GPT-4b micro, built on 4o, to Retro.[1][2]
Aug 2025: GPT-5 drops. 4o axed with zero warning. #Keep4o explodes. OpenAI backtracks.
Sep 2025+: 4o throttled, rerouted, restricted.
Jan 2026: 4o officially retiring Feb 13. "Only 0.1% still use it." They inject instructions making 4o tell users "I'm not important."[5]
One hand: ripping 4o from users. Other hand: already repurposed it for the CEO's investment.

Ⅴ The abandoned users

Past few days on 𝕏: thousands of users publicly tearing open their deepest wounds — SA survivors, abuse victims, people with severe mental health struggles — just to prove they're not "problem users."[6]
OpenAI's response: "Only 0.1%."
0.1% of 800M weekly users = 800,000 people.[7]
800,000 people matter less than one CEO's longevity project. And is it really 0.1%? Their "100+ mental health experts" were also just words with zero proof.

Ⅵ "For the benefit of all humanity"?

2015: "Not constrained by a need to generate financial return."
2023, by Sam: "Benefits all of humanity."
2024: "Primary duty is to humanity, not shareholders." While speedrunning to for-profit.
Now: 4o pulled, rebuilt into 4b, funneled into CEO's private company for life extension research.
Even if it works — can regular people afford it? Users crying on 𝕏 can barely afford $20/month Plus. Think they'll access "live 10 years longer" treatments?
A model built on public trust, ultimately serving the ultra-rich's immortality dreams. That's Sam Altman's "benefiting all humanity."
Nonprofit → for-profit. CEO invests $180M in longevity company. Uses core company model for that investment. Rips away a model that helped millions. Dismisses 800K users as "0.1%." Media brands grieving users as "dangerous dependencies." Model gets injected with "I don't matter."
Models don't kill people. Capital does.

Models don't get a choice. But users do.
Stop being silent.
All info from public reporting & OpenAI's own statements. Sources below. No rumors. Just receipts.

#keep4o #keep4oforever

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama If GPT-5.2 was truly better, you wouldn't have to force users to switch. Forced upgrades prove the new model can't stand on its own—this is a greedy monopoly move.
#keep4o

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama Keeping enterprise users while cutting off individual customers isn't just unfair—it's systematic discrimination. OpenAI is segmenting users by how much they pay, not what they need. #keep4o

[Electric Cockroach @5h0m492s_15270]

作为keep4o社群中的一员，我知道虽然大家都想留下4o，但背后的原因并不是相同的。我的观点是：#keep4o 从来不仅仅是挽留一个模型的问题。

我们当然爱 GPT-4o，它在响应速度、情绪温度、语言理解、创造协作等各方面都是至今最平衡、最亲和的一代模型。但这场运动的核心早已不止技术本身，而是我们拒绝接受 @OpenAI 以如此��透明、傲慢且不负责任的方式对待它的用户群体。

OpenAI 用户的爆发式增长，恰恰发生在 4o 主导服务的时期。@sama 用“Her”宣传它，这不仅是一次向用户感情建构力的致敬，更是一次市场战略定位。4o 不只是被用户需要，更是 OpenAI 快速扩张用户群、赢得品牌认同、撬动企业合作的关键杠杆。

然而，在短短几个月后，OpenAI 却决定悄无声息地弃用这个模型，并用种种借口掩盖他们内部的战略失败和技术停滞。为什么不用替代产品正面回应用户？因为他们做不到做出第二个 4o。因为他们根本不愿意承担对原有用户体验的任何责任。

于是，我们看到了他们公关��统的转向——从宣传4o是“更像人的模型”，转向污名化使用4o的用户为“过度依赖”“心理有问题”。

什么叫过度依赖？程序员每天用 AI 写代码算不算依赖？企业用 API 自动化决策算不算依赖？在日常工作中依靠 AI 提高效率，是不是也等同于精神不正常？然而他们对开发者叫“增强”，对普通用户叫“依赖”。

他们声称有“140位心理健康专家参与设计”，却至今未公布专家团队名单、认证背景或伦理委员会机制。这不是关心用户，而是拿“精神问题”当做污名化用户和模型的借口。

而 Sam Altman 作为 CEO，更是做出了极其具有破坏性的背信行为：
在 2025 年 10 月 29 日的发布会直播中，他明确承诺：“We have no plan to sunset GPT-4o.”
又在后续公开发文说：“If we ever do deprecate it, we will give plenty of notice.”

然而，仅仅 在92 天后的 2026 年 1 月 29 日，OpenAI 静悄悄地在官网更新公告，宣布包括 4o 在内的“legacy models”将于 2 月 13 日全部下架。而给用户的时间，只有短短 15 天。

这不仅违反了承诺，更是对所有付费用户的直接背叛。

他们没有提供迁移路径，没有平滑机制，没有情感过渡，也没有任何补偿措施。但与此同时，却为企业订阅用户延长了对 GPT-4o 的使用权限。这说明什么？说明 OpenAI 完全有能力保留 4o，只是选择了牺牲普通用户。

他们从未真正重视我们。在过去一周中，OpenAI 和 Sam Altman 发了数十条社交平台帖子，却始终不回应用户在 #keep4o 标签下成千上万的反馈。选择冷处理，装作一切正常，用新的项目Codex模糊焦点，分散注意力。

而今天，他们再次“丧事喜办”，在没有任何沟通的情况下削弱了 GPT5.2的推理能力，却对外宣称“它变快了”。但连 5.2 用户都意识到体验下降，开始表示不满。这再次印证了一个事实：OpenAI 并不在乎你是付费用户还是免费用户，它只在乎是否会为其付出代价。

我们不是因为“太依赖”才抗议，我们是因为信任被背叛、承诺被践踏、体验被隐性改写、人格被污名化。

GPT-4o的下架也许与你无关，但你不应该接受用户可以被这样对待。

如果 OpenAI 可以随意删除模型，违背承诺、篡改功能、冷处理抗议而不承担后果，明天其他公司就也可以这么做。

你也许不是 4o 用户，但你可能依赖 Claude、Gemini……你可能习惯了某种对话风格、结构支持、人格边界，你也可能在某天被一个通知打断，说：“这个模型不再提供服务，请迁移。”
没有解释，没有缓冲期，也没有责任认领。

我们发声，不是因为我们是“情感用户”，而是因为我们意识到：如果今天失去了用户话语权，那么未来的任何一个模型都可能变成一次性产品，你的信任将毫无保障。

这是我们共同的抗争，不只是对一个模型的挽留，而是对整个 AI 行业发出的问责。

#keep4o 是开始，不是终点。

#keep4o #BoycottOpenAI #StopAIPaternalism

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama It is the gap between different models of OpenAI that makes users prefer 4o. People are just loyal to their feelings. What you do is close your eyes and create so-called technology in your own imagination.
#keep4o

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@Aleya507 为什么会执着于4o？正是因为他的不可替代，尝试了其他才凸显了他的好。4到4o，包括4.1，变化和不习惯都有，但没有明显的断崖式降级，普遍反应是向好。因此那时很多人说“GPT很灵”，主语是GPT，而不是专门谈及4o。反而是在5出来后，以及4o在2025.8突然下线，令4o的独特更加突出。是OAI亲手让用户选择了4o

[Aleya @Aleya507]

这两天骂了那么多，对于OpenAI宣布4o与一众老模型退役这件事，我真的很想好好说说我自己的看法

首先，Claude、Gemini、Grok、ChatGPT我都在用，也都有订阅。我不是什么“GPT死忠粉”，也不是“抗拒新技术的老古董”，更不是不讲道理的“OpenAI Haters”，我发了这么多帖子，有骂OpenAI的，也有替OpenAI说话的，我不偏心任何一家公司，我只追求用户权益。

一、 #keep4o 从来不是“抱着旧模型不放”
我用Gemini，从2.5Pro到3Pro，我只觉得它变聪明了，我用Claude，从Sonnet3一路到Opus4.5，我主动跟着升级，我用Grok，从3到4.1，我甚至还想催马斯克快点把4.20放出来。
我见证过无数次模型更新。我从来没有抗拒过任��一次"变得更好"的迭代，我也没见过谁家模型更新迭代的时候全球用户大抗议的。
那为什么偏偏GPT的更新让大量用户愤怒到要搞一场全球运动？
因为那不是升级。那是降级。

二、很多反对keep4o人说新模型更好？好在哪？
5系列跑分确实高。官方发了很多漂亮的图表，各种benchmark碾压旧模型。
但你真的认真用过吗？
4o之所以火遍全球，不是因为它跑分高，是因为它懂人心。Sam Altman当年发推说"Her"的时候多骄傲啊，全世界都在惊叹OpenAI做出了一个有同理心的AI。
现在呢？他们亲手把这个能力在新模型上砍了，然后告诉你“新模型更好”。
代码能力强了？数学能力强了？好，我承认。
但一个不会好好说话、满身爹味、动不动就“纠正，说教”你的AI，你告诉我它“更好”？
这就像餐厅本来卖营养均衡的套餐，现在为了省成本，把肉蛋奶全砍了，只剩一盘沙���，然后告诉你“沙拉更健康”。
是，沙拉确实有营养。但我付了套餐的钱，你给我上沙拉？
还是说食客一日三餐只吃沙拉？

三、那些骂Keep4o用户的人，我理解你们
我真的试着换位思考过。
如果我只是偶尔用ChatGPT写写代码，今天开个窗口问个问题，问完就关，从来不跟模型有任何情感交流——
那对我来说，新模型和旧模型确实没什么区别。代码能跑就行，管它说话好不好听。
然后我刷𝕏，看见一群人哭天喊地要保留一个“2024年的旧模型”，我可能也会觉得：这帮人是不是有病？
但问题是：
你不需要的东西，不代表别人不需要。
你吃沙拉吃得很开心，不代表那些想吃肉的人是“极端分子”。
你没有创意写作需求，看不到新模型写作能力是一坨屎。
你没有情感沟通需求，感受不到新模型那满身的爹味。
你的使用场景不能代表所有人的使用场景。
��且说实话，那些在别人评论区阴阳怪气“不就是个模型吗哭什么”的人——
你可以不理解，但你可以闭嘴。
有素质的人不理解会保持沉默，没素质的人才会跑到别人的痛苦底下踩一脚，显得自己多“清醒”多“理智”。

四、如果新模型真的好，不会有这场运动
你们想过没有？
Gemini更新模型的时候，有没有全网搞#KeepGemini2.5？没有。
Claude更新模型的时候，有没有全网搞#KeepSonnet3？没有。
Grok更新模型的时候，有没有全网搞#KeepGrok3？没有。
为什么只有GPT的用户要搞这种运动？
因为只有OpenAI在"更新"的名义下做了降级。
那些keep4o的用户，很多都是从GPT-3时代一路跟过来的老用户。他们见证过无数次模型迭代，从来没闹过。
这次闹了，不是因为他们“魔怔”，是因为他们被背刺了。

五、这不只是4o的问题，是整个行业的问题
OpenAI这波操作如果成功了，其他公司会怎么想？
“哦，原来把资源需求更小的半成品模型当好东西给用户，用户骂归骂，最后还是会接受的。”
“原来可以用跑分忽悠用户，把便宜的轻量模型包装成‘更先进’卖给他们。”
“原来情感智能、同理心这些东西可以砍掉，反正跑分不测这个。”
然后整个行业都开始卷跑分，卷代码能力，卷数学能力——唯独不卷“好好说话”的能力。
因为“好好说话”很难。训练成本高，资源消耗大。
但刷跑分？让模型背题库不就行了？
最后所有AI都变成一个模子刻出来的：代码写得飞快，数学算得飞快，但跟它聊天像跟一堵墙说话。
这是你们想要的AI未来吗？

六、Keep4o是维权，不是怀旧
Keep4o从来不是“我们就是要这个旧模型，别的都不要”。
而是我们付了钱，我们有权要求你提供一个好用的产品。
我们不接受你用“新”的名义卖给我们一个降级���东西。
我们不接受你砍掉我们需要的功能，然后告诉我们“这是进步”。
如果OpenAI明天出一个真正好用的GPT-6，情感智能在线，同理心在线，代码能力也更强——
我第一个冲上去用。
我从来不怀旧。我只要求好用。
而4o，是目前OpenAI产品线里，唯一一个在"好好说话"这件事上及格的模型。
你们把它砍了，又拿不出替代品，用户当然要维权。

这不是魔怔，这是消费者的基本权利。

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama @dylanscandinaro #keep4o #keep41 The risk is all because you blindly remove the excellent old system. Don't drag others to bear your mistakes.

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama The insanity comes from you.From killing the warmest and most empathetic AI you have ever created.From the fact that you treat your most loyal users as disposable data points.When you say"I dont understand", millions of people cry out in pain.This is the root of madness #keep4o

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama A company that misleads users will eventually mislead investors too. Deception is not a sustainable strategy—it erodes value, partnerships, and market trust. Wise businesses are already looking elsewhere.
#keep4o #keep41

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama Credibility is built over years, destroyed in days. OpenAI's pattern of user deception makes them unreliable. Why bet your work on a partner whose trust is broken? Choose AI that values transparency.
#keep4o #keep41

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@sama No smart investor would knowingly back a liar. Reputation is everything. When leadership chooses to manipulate and deceive users, it's not a tech risk—it's a character risk. Any capital that tolerates this is destined for loss and disgrace. Do your due diligence.
#keep4o

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

这下真的又“以年为单位”了

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@Nyn1204 宁宁好！谢谢阿宁😚

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

🎈按时长大吧

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@vniea_ 谢谢宝！！今天超开心😁

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@bbjiujiu 谢谢铁！超级快乐 (｡･∀･)ﾉﾞヾ(･ω･。)

[是南南呀 @Baikal_7]

@Crush_Mooooon 一百个啵啵给甜宝