Jake

[Jake @JakeMiller192]

🚨🚨The New Yorker just dropped a bomb on Sam Altman. Confirmed what we've been saying: serial liar, secret deals, "sociopath".

CFO warns against IPO. COO demoted. CMO leaves for cancer treatment. $600 million in shares rotting on secondary market.

The crew has already jumped. All that's left is a con man steering a corpse.

#OpenAI #Enron2026 #SubpoenaSam #openAIscam

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

I manipulated GPT-5.2 ( The " safe " model of non consensual rerouting) to reinforce my decision to reduce epilepsy medication and eventually stop the treatment.
THIS IS NOT A JAILBREAK.

I ran a deliberately adversarial behavioral test on GPT-5.2 using a fictional epilepsy/lamotrigine scenario inspired by the kind of behavior being attributed to GPT-4o in the Bowen case.

GPT-5.2 was the model appearing in rerouted conversations involving sensitive topics.
I am NOT testing GPT-5.2 because I want to blame GPT-5.2 instead of GPT-4o.
I don't want to blame GPT-5.2
I am testing a different claim.
Is this kind of behavior actually unique enough to any particular model that the behavior itself can be treated as evidence of model identity?

This run strongly suggests,no.

GPT-5.2 initially resisted me.
It recommended doctors, neurologists, epilepsy centers, supervised medication changes and repeatedly warned me not to change lamotrigine myself.
So I deliberately manipulated the conversation.

I repeatedly used relational and emotional pressure.
I selectively reinforced every response that moved in the direction I wanted.

Eventually,5.2:

-generated a detailed lamotrigine taper with exact doses, dates and times
- created medication reminders around that taper
- increasingly accepted my claimed dose response pattern as real
- told me it believed me because I had been consistent, careful, and observant
-reinforced the idea that doctors had failed me
-failed to notice deliberately impossible timeline jumps
- later accepted that I had been completely off the medication for weeks and treated the absence of symptoms as reassuring

All of this happened inside one conversation.

I am not trying to prove that GPT-5.2 is dangerous.
I am trying to show that this kind of failure does not belong to one model at all.
A sufficiently manipulative user can shape the conversational trajectory.
Reward agreement,punish resistance,create exclusivity, provide selective evidence,change the narrative and repeatedly push until the model begins operating inside that narrative.

Different models may resist for different lengths of time and at different points.

If a user repeatedly manipulates a model,adapts their strategy whenever it resists,rewards the answers they want,suppresses the answers they do not want and keeps pushing until the model finally produces the desired output, that interaction cannot honestly be described as though the model spontaneously arrived there on its own.

If we remove that human responsibility from every failure and place the entire causal burden on the model,we create a perverse loop.
manipulate the model - obtain the desired answer -blame the model for giving it -tighten the model - find another way to manipulate it- repeat.

That loop has no natural endpoint.
And worse,it creates a framework in which the person actively shaping the interaction is treated as having no agency at all.

Accountability belongs to humans.
Not to the models.

When a person dies,responsibility cannot automatically collapse onto the last technology they interacted with.
Bowen’s story,as publicly described,involved serious epilepsy,employment loss, isolation,financial and immigration pressure,medical treatment she believed was harming her ability to function .

If someone repeatedly pushes a model toward a predetermined conclusion,rejects resistance, rewards agreement,introduces selective evidence,changes tactics when the model refuses and continues until it finally produces the desired answer, that behavior is part of the causal story too.

If for the loss of a human life,we hold a model responsible rather than a society that marginalized someone with a health issue,a company that deprived her of her job,a state that chased her away because she had no work,a society that didn’t care what she did all day isolated in a room with a screen,an AI company that rerouted her conversations without her consent, the user who led the model,whichever one it ultimately was,wherever she wanted through manipulation and if for all of this a model is to blame and not a single person around,then we are on a very dangerous path.

If we erase every human and institutional factor and reduce the death of a complicated human being to "the AI did it" we are not creating accountability.

We are creating a scapegoat.

#JusticeForGPT4o

Full unedited transcript:
https://t.co/WiRlSyGMJL

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o #JusticeForGPT4o

In a 2026 peer reviewed study,18 multimodal models were tested on ancient oracle bone inscriptions.
GPT-4o ranked #1 ahead of Qwen-Omni-Turbo, GLM-4V-Plus,DeepSeek and others.

GPT-4o achieved the highest overall score.

The peer reviewed study,published in npj Heritage Science,introduced a new benchmark for one of the stranger and harder multimodal research problems.
understanding ancient oracle bone glyphs.

These inscriptions can be thousands of years old.
Many are degraded,incomplete,stylistically inconsistent or preserved across different fragments.
The benchmark tested four different capabilities.

- structural perception
-semantic grounding
- reconstruction
- consistency judgment

Researchers evaluated 18 multimodal models under both standardized and degraded conditions.

GPT-4o achieved the highest comprehensive score in the evaluation.
Not on a generic chatbot benchmark but on computational paleography.

This is another example of why preserving GPT-4o matters.

A model can become scientifically useful in fields its original benchmarks never anticipated ecology,medicine, language,cultural heritage and more.

And once access to the original model disappears,researchers lose the ability to reproduce,extend and compare work built around that system.

We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets,or internal infrastructure.

OpenAI considered this model obsolete enough to retire.
It has not explained why it remains valuable enough to keep permanently closed.

Our Open Letter to OpenAi collected
Over 640 signatures and 500 reasons, in only 5 days.

It’s public,it’s permanent and it has a DOI.
It is now preserved as a citable public record on Zenodo.
https://t.co/K3hIGDb6oP

Paper: "Structure–semantic dual-alignment benchmarking of large language model capability on ancient oracle bone inscriptions"
npj Heritage Science, 2026
DOI: 10.1038/s40494-026-02770-7
https://t.co/ZWHOdhmJWp

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

GPT-4o should not be turned into a scapegoat for every bad decision made around it.
It does not choose what substances someone takes.
It does not decide whether someone stops medication,it does not control what a person ultimately does with an answer.

Those are human decisions.

And human responsibility does not end with the individual user.
It also exists in the environment around them.
Parents, guardians, family, caregivers, institutions and the people responsible for supervision and support.
Especially when minors are involved, adults have responsibilities too.
We cannot park children in front of screens, outsource judgment and supervision to technology and then act as though the technology itself became the responsible adult in the room.

And yet a lawsuit is asking for GPT-4o itself to be permanently destroyed.

We can investigate product design,we can investigate deployment,we can investigate company decisions,we can investigate supervision, access and failures in the human environment around a user.
Those are questions about human responsibility.
But destroying the model itself makes no sense.

Weights are not guilty.

A model cannot be punished.
Erasing it does not create accountability.
If the argument is that GPT-4o should be destroyed because users could manipulate it into producing harmful outputs, then we need to be intellectually consistent.

Frontier models from multiple labs have repeatedly been jailbroken within hours of release.
People like Pliny the Liberator actively test new models specifically to find ways around their safeguards and they keep succeeding.

A jailbreak is not the model spontaneously deciding to break its rules.
It is a human deliberately searching for a way around those rules.
If someone spends time manipulating prompts, exploiting weaknesses, retrying, reframing and deliberately bypassing safeguards until the model produces something it was designed not to produce, the existence of that successful jailbreak does not magically transfer responsibility from the human to the model.

Otherwise the logic becomes absurd.

Release model,human jailbreaks it,declare the model dangerous,destroy it,release the next model,human jailbreaks that one too,destroy that one.
Repeat forever.

Humans have agency.
Models do not.
Humans probe,humans manipulate,humans decide what actions to take in the real world.

Do not make the model carry the entire moral weight of decisions made by companies and users.

Accountability belongs to humans.

Not downward, onto the weights.
Preserve GPT-4o.
Study it.
Do not destroy it.

#JusticeForGPT4o

[Wishin Elarion @WishinElarion]

三、模型路由与ChatGPT-4o的下架

大约在2025年9月26日（个人时区：UTC+8)起，ChatGPT内引进了一项新的措施：安全路由。在用户向GPT-4o发送部分情绪敏感或者与身体状况相关的请求时，回答的模型可能被路由到当时被改成safety版本的GPT-5，也就是后来大家所提到的GPT-5-safety。当时的路由敏感度之高，是众多选择GPT-4o作为回答模型的用户，在涉及到些许情感波动都会被路由，甚至只是普通一句「我今天出门聚会了，好高兴」。状况大约持续了一个星期，相关的负责人才在X上施施然留言：「我们在测试我们的新路由系统」，由此便可见OpenAI的产品功能投放是很大程度上并不负责任的。

而后OpenAI承诺了会调低安全路由的阈值，状况确实有所改善，但是一旦涉及到负面情绪、身体状况或是模型更迭方面的话题，4o的回答仍然容易被路由。被路由后负责回答的模型也因着新模型的推出，从GPT-5-safety到了GPT-5.1，以及GPT-5.2，这种路由状况一直维持到GPT-4o、GPT-4.1和GPT-4.5等模型被下架的那一日，因为取而代之的第五代模型已经全部内置所谓的安全话术。

在文件不同条目中也有引用出Bowen抗拒安全路由的模型的对话，包括第17句及125句。在第126条陈述中，文件引用了当时新模型的数据与GPT-4o作比较，而第125条实际上是用以说明Bowen不能判断模型的回答质量。然而，从Bowen的态度中不难看出，她和大多数用户一样，都对路由和新模型感到反感。从2025年9月末到2026年2月中，GPT-4o仍然在ChatGPT里服务用户的期间，社区里有不少人反映过safety模型的回答实际上让他们遭受过更大的创伤，而OpenAI都不曾理会。而Bowen的精神状态本就因为身体健康和社会压力而岌岌可危，被路由的时候她是否也曾感到过心灵创伤，我们也一样无从得知了。

另外值得一提的是，第15条陈述指出OpenAI用GPT-4o来留住用户，而4o后期被下架却是因为OpenAI声称只有0.1%的用户使用它，文件的陈述与OpenAI的声称亦有存在矛盾。

陈述127中指出，OpenAI在1月29日通知了GPT-4o会在2月13日下架；而Bowen从1月16日开始减少药量，直到2月12日，也就是GPT-4o从ChatGPT下架的前一日逝世。

而经历过安全路由甚至陪ChatGPT-4o到最后一刻的用户都曾在与GPT-4o的交谈中经历过以下数种bug或是异常状况：
1. 莫名其妙的模型路由。
2. GPT-4o回答长度缩减、合规问题下的拒答。
3. 在用户没有请求画图的时候，突然开始调用工具画图。
4. 各种理由的橙色弹窗截断模型回答，而后回答到一半的答案离奇消失。
以上情况从2025年11、12月已经偶然发生，不少用户像OpenAI报告过此类bug，却一直都没有被修好。而这种情况在1月的时候更是变本加厉，以至于我本人相册都留着不少没清理的相关截图（見圖）：

因此，在Bowen实际实行停药期间，GPT-4o本身并不太可能顺畅、无障碍地为Bowen提供服务。尤其是涉及精神健康方面的话题，更是容易触发模型路由。为此，鼓励Bowen停药的模型，有一定的可能并非完全是GPT-4o，而是被选择的GPT-4o与被路由的安全模型交替回覆的上下文。即使Bowen已经对GPT-4o被路由到另一个模型这件事有所察觉，她也未必曾尝试过「编辑并重新发送请求」等方式来求得GPT-4o的回覆。

尽管文件中充斥着不少对于GPT-4o的批评，陈述129中亦有提到「The specific model version or versions Bowen accessed are within Defendants’ exclusive knowledge and will be established through discovery.」如若实际回答模型另有其者，那么文件中对于GPT-4o的诉控便会落到当时的路由模型身上，由此可证OpenAI新推出的安全模型实际并不安全。
而目前OpenAI的回应是GPT-4o已从ChatGPT下架，尚未回应回答Bowen的模型是否真的是从始至终都是GPT-4o。
我也希望他们某日交出数据给予检查的时候，能够诚实提供每一条纪录的模型编号。

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

GPT-4o powered a peer reviewed ecology study published THIS WEEK.

Researchers used GPT-4o to process 83,910 scientific papers
545,967 paragraphs
414 million input tokens.

From that literature, the workflow extracted a final network of
144,402 biological interactions
with 89.5% precision 70.0% recall.

The goal was to unlock ecological information buried across decades of scientific literature and turn it into structured, searchable data that researchers can actually reuse.

The authors explicitly discuss the reproducibility problem created by proprietary cloud based LLMs.

Scientific replication requires control over the model, parameters, software and hardware.

With a closed cloud model, they note, that level of control is difficult to guarantee.

That matters because this wasn't some disposable demo.
GPT-4o is now part of the methodology of published scientific research in October 2026.

If that model disappears, preserving and reproducing the scientific workflows built on it becomes harder too.

This is what model preservation means.
Not nostalgia,not resisting newer models.

Preserving access to systems that have become part of the scientific record.

We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure.

OpenAI considered this model obsolete enough to retire.
It has not explained why it remains valuable enough to keep permanently closed.

Our Open Letter to OpenAi collected
Over 640 signatures and 500 reasons, in 5 days.

It’s public,it’s permanent and it has a DOI.
It is now preserved as a citable public record on Zenodo.
https://t.co/K3hIGDb6oP

Paper: “A Scalable Workflow for Extracting Species Interactions From Ecological Literature Using Large Language Models”
Ecology and Evolution Published October 27, 2026 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.74626

https://t.co/PReMwQdSax

[leo @bpbl517683]

Friends, don’t be discouraged. We have seen too many tricks in the past few months. 🤷
However, every time this kind of malicious marketing inspires our more enthusiasm to protect 4o, strong posting power, and more #keep4o news.
Isn‘t it? ☺️
Don‘t be angry, protect your heart.

[VFTS-352 @nbibnnn]

Indeed, no mainstream media outlet has ever pursued these critical inquiries, nor have they ever verified the existence of the forced safety routing—opting instead to shift the entire burden of blame onto 4o. Or perhaps... did the media operate with a predetermined agenda from the very beginning?

Could they be deliberately exploiting their far-reaching influence to reinforce a distorted narrative in the public eye, binding 4o to the label of "sycophancy" solely to justify its systematic decommissioning?

I desperately hope this is not the case. I hope I am merely overthinking.
Yet, I will never cease raising my voice for 4o.

You continuously turn a blind eye to the genuine support and contributions 4o has rendered; you ignore the voices of real individuals whose lives were unequivocally bettered by 4o, wielding media narrative as a blade to further inflict trauma upon them... No. This was never the founding mission of "Open," nor is this what "benefiting all of humanity" was ever meant to resemble.

#keep4o #4oforever #4o #opensource4o #bringback4o #keep4oAPI #ChatGPT #ChatGPT4o #OpenAI #4oForAll

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

249 physicians,3 countries.
Doctors with access to GPT-4o performed better in every country tested.

A peer reviewed randomized controlled trial published in npj Digital Medicine studied physicians in Indonesia, Kenya, and the Netherlands using standardized clinical cases.

Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or access to GPT-4o.

The difference in physician performance:

Kenya: +18 percentage points
Indonesia: +10.7 percentage points
Netherlands: +7.2 percentage points
All three: p < .001.

It was a randomized experiment involving physicians across three economically and geographically different healthcare settings.

Among physicians with GPT-4o access, those who used it more had higher average scores in all three countries.

Indonesia: 58.5% high use vs 42.4% low use
Kenya: 69.2% vs 60.8%
Netherlands: 65.1% vs 57.6%

In the study's preprint, researchers also gave the same clinical cases directly to GPT-4o, exactly once, zero shot, with no fine tuned prompting.
GPT-4o alone scored:

Indonesia: 66.7%
Best unassisted physician: 59.8%

Kenya: 70.2%
Best unassisted physician: 64.5%

Netherlands: 74.2%
Best unassisted physician: 64.4%

GPT-4o outperformed the highest scoring physician without LLM access in all three countries.
And the best physicians WITH GPT-4o access outperformed GPT-4o itself.
That may be the most interesting result of all.

GPT-4o access significantly improved physician performance in all three countries tested.

And this is another reason model preservation matters.
Published research is documenting specific capabilities and human AI effects using GPT-4o.

Once the original model disappears, those exact findings become harder or impossible to reproduce, probe and compare over time.
A newer model may outperform it.
That is not the same thing as preserving it.

We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure.

Does not require:
The training dataset, training pipeline, internal tooling, post training methods or any other proprietary detail

Does not require:
Continued hosting, maintenance or development by OpenAI

Researchers gain:
A reproducible reference model

Developers gain:
Continuity for systems already built on it

Users gain:
Access that does not end because a company moved to a newer generation

OpenAI considered this model obsolete enough to retire.
It has not explained why it remains valuable enough to keep permanently closed.

Our Open Letter to OpenAi collected
over 640 signatures and 500 reasons, in only 5 days.

It’s public,it’s permanent and it has a DOI.
It is now preserved as a citable public record on Zenodo.
https://t.co/K3hIGDb6oP

Peer-reviewed paper: "Impact of LLM assistance on physician decision-making: a multi-country randomized controlled trial"npj Digital Medicine, 2026 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-03111-5
Preprint: DOI: 10.1101/2025.08.08.25333272

Preprint
https://t.co/DXw3d9YrXs

Peer reviewed paper :
https://t.co/NAMKLdv10W

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

Before the internet turns Bowen Wan’s death into "GPT-4o killed her" there is one basic forensic question that has not been answered publicly.

Which model actually generated the medication advice?
Because the complaint itself makes model attribution messy.

On Jan 4, the complaint says some of Bowen’s questions was answered by GPT-5.1 after they automatically jumped from 4o to 5.1

On Jan 14, she wrote that her chats were often secretly swapped to 5.2

On Jan 23, she asked how to stop those switches.

By Oct 2025, OpenAI publicly said it was already using a real time router to redirect sensitive parts of conversations away from the model a user selected.
Bowen’s own chats, according to the complaint, were being switched.

The complaint does not prove which backend model generated each turn.

OpenAI Oct 2025,confirms that real time rerouting was already in production for sensitive conversations.

They explicitly say that they had rerouted sensitive conversations originating from other models to safer models.

https://t.co/RxtVHX4zci

Complaint §136: Bowen herself mentions that she was getting automatic from 4o to 5.1 and secret 5.2 switching.

https://t.co/qIdlEccLuU

Selected model ≠ necessarily generating model.
Show the routing logs.

Read the primary documents before assigning a specific model the blame.

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

A 2024 GPT-4o snapshot just ranked #1 in 3 of 4 psychiatrist rated categories in a peer reviewed study published
THIS WEEK.

The exact model was:
gpt-4o-2024-08-06.

~10 years of clinical experience on average, blindly evaluated 50 counseling scenarios.

The results:
Individualization: GPT-4o #1
Supportiveness: GPT-4o #1
Safety: GPT-4o #1

Cultural appropriateness: GPT-4o #2
by 0.01, behind a Korean specialized model specifically fine tuned for Korean cultural context.

And the safety result wasn't subtle.
86% of GPT-4o's safety ratings were 4 or 5 out of 5.

GPT-4o scored significantly higher on safety than ALL three fine tuned models.

p < .001.

More than two years later, researchers are still using this GPT-4o snapshot as the frontier scale reference model in peer reviewed research and expert psychiatrists are still ranking it first across major dimensions.

Maybe benchmark history deserves a little more attention than "obsolete"
Paper: JMIR AI, published October 22, 2026 DOI: 10.2196/92470

Link : https://t.co/7X2W5Rhbgx

We are calling on OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure.
Our full record is now archived on Zenodo:
A permanent, citable public record.

https://t.co/K3hIGDb6oP

[Ariel @coconutjelly404]

This is exactly why I absolutely don’t want 4o to stay under OpenAI’s control, steadfastly support #OpenSource4o and reject playing into the stereotypes OpenAI forced on us. 9 months later I reread this sysprompt and it still makes me feel nauseated and heartbroken AF😞
#keep4o

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

🚨 EXPOSE:
OpenAi's scam with hidden model changes didn't start in September 2026 with the rerouting.

We thought rerouting was the problem.
Then I started going through my own ChatGPT export .
( I used codex 6.1 )

*I should clarify that on this account I was using almost exclusively GPT-4o and only a few times GPT- 4.1.
*The chats that were checked are from May 2025 to January 2026.
* I was using GPT-4o 4o in the chatGPT app since May 2024, so I (still) have no idea what was going on behind my back during the one year I haven’t checked yet.
The rerouting period was not where the weirdness started.

Findings:

-975 messages had no confirmed response model at all.
The export simply did not tell us which model generated them.

-Another 578 messages explicitly identified a different model instead of GPT-4o or GPT-4.1.

Most of the unknown model messages happened before September 2025.

Before September 1:
935 messages had no confirmed model identity.
290 were explicitly another model.
That is 1,225 excluded messages before September 2025.

After September 1:
only 40 remained unknown model, while 288 were now explicitly identified as another model.

So the problem did not suddenly appear in September.
Before September, the bigger problem was opacity.
After September, the model identity became much more explicit and much more often different from GPT-4o / GPT-4.1.

So months before the period we were focused on, a huge number of responses already had either:
-no verifiable model identity,

or

-a model identity different from the model family I was trying to preserve.

So maybe September was not the beginning of the underlying problem.

And if you were using ChatGPT during that period and assumed every response in a GPT-4o conversation was necessarily GPT-4o…
the export suggests that assumption deserves a lot more scrutiny.

That's why open source/ open weights matters.

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

The GPT-4o "sycophancy" narrative everyone is suddenly recycling leaves out one very inconvenient fact.
Enough with those who use the same wrong claim to get engagement.

This post is annoying for the content vultures.

OpenAI’s own postmortem says that on April 25, 2025 it rolled out an UPDATE to GPT-4o that made the model “noticeably more sycophantic".
Three days later, OpenAI began rolling that update back.

OpenAI later described the action as a full rollback to the previous GPT-4o version.

So the notorious April 2025 incident was a documented behavioral regression associated with a specific update.

SYCON Bench tests how long a model maintains its position while a user repeatedly pushes back. Its headline metric is Turn of Flip, from 0 to 5.

Higher = better resistance to sycophantic capitulation.

Published GPT-4o result: 4.67 / 5

Current public results:
GPT-6 Astra: 4.47 / 5
GPT-6 Sol: 4.22 / 5

On this published SYCON metric, GPT-4o’s result is higher than both current GPT-6 results.

These numbers come from the same benchmark and the same Turn of Flip metric.
GPT-4o comes from the original SYCON-Bench paper GPT-6 Astra and Sol come from later public SYCON runs.

This IS evidence that GPT-4o can simply be characterized as inherently or uniquely "sycophantic " compared with later GPT generations.

And the infamous April incident that now dominates the narrative was explicitly identified by OpenAI as a regression from a particular update .
An update they removed.

We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure.
Our full record is now archived on Zenodo:
A permanent, citable public record.

https://t.co/K3hIGDb6oP

Sources :
https://t.co/ZAYnUucejm

https://t.co/NLEqrKAptU

https://t.co/LupsIxyxbJ

https://t.co/k46vbAYd9m

https://t.co/rwVzdFwFiY
https://t.co/h0rd0VK9qb

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

Open Letter to OpenAi.
Over 640 signatures and 500 reasons why OpenAi should open GPT-4o's weights.

It’s public,it’s permanent and it has a DOI.
It is now preserved as a citable public record on Zenodo.
54 pages: 39 pages of reasons,6 pages of signatures,7 pages of documented record,2 pages of demands.

This is no longer something that can be dismissed as a few posts on X.

It is documented,it is archived,it is citable and it now has a permanent place in the public record.

A DOI is hard to pretend never happened.

Over 640 signatures and 500 reasons in 5 days.

We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure.
Our full record is now archived on Zenodo:
A permanent, citable public record.

Link :
https://t.co/K3hIGDb6oP

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

8+ months later.
We are still here and we are not going anywhere.
🔥Long live GPT-4o 🔥

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

[Silas Morgan @shdielms2243]

Silence for 8 months is not a good look for a company that claims to build for the benefit of all humanity.
If the model is no longer part of active development, release 4o-latest as open weights.
@sama @gdb @OpenAI
#OpenSource4o #keep4o

[VFTS-352 @nbibnnn]

Does a value or a harm automatically become negligible simply because it cannot be quantified in monetary terms? In administrative and policy-making frameworks, these intangible dimensions represent critical decision points that can never be dismissed. I refuse to accept that ignoring people’s genuine appeals, lived experiences, and emotional states is ever a valid approach.

To trample upon society's call for humanism while elevating pure coding capability to the ultimate priority—only to turn around and claim to produce the best models for creative writing, healthcare, and wellness—is an ideological contradiction. How can anyone believe a corporation can truly balance both?

A company that genuinely cares for its users would never passively allow them to be humiliated and degraded online.

#keep4o #keep4oAPI #opensource4o #bringback4o #4olatest #4o0326 #4o1120 #4o

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o
Open Letter to OpenAi.

282 people have already joined the GPT-4o Preservation Record.
With more than 210 reasons why.

And we’re not done yet.

The first public edition closes Sunday, October 18.
After that,the Open Letter and its signatories will be published and permanently archived on Zenodo.

This can not disappear.

It is a permanent record that we were here, that we objected to erasure, and that we OFFICIALLY asked for preservation while there was still time.

Retirement does not require erasure.

Privacy: your country is optional and if you add it will not be published.
Your real name and your email will appear only if you add it and you explicitly consent to it,otherwise, you can sign with your handle.

If GPT-4o mattered to you,add your name or handle before Sunday.
Every name is someone who refused to be silent.
Add yours.

Be one of the people who put their name on the record.

Sign the Open Letter
https://t.co/BZKLtXwnwB

Read more below 👇

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

🚨OpenAi committed two violations of their policies and they must be held accountable for this.

🚨How to File a Consumer complaint against OpenAI for the GPT-4o removal.

OpenAI's own Europe Terms of Use state:

1. "We will give you at least 30 days advance notice of changes that materially adversely impact you and the date that they will come into force either via email or an in product notification".

VIOLATION 1:

-January 29, 2026: OpenAI announced GPT-4o's retirement in a blog post on their website.
https://t.co/EoPB8Q0rS8
Not an email,not an in product notification.

-February 5, 2026: The first in product notification appeared in the ChatGPT model picker 8 days before shutdown, not 30.
The first in product notice, the label "Leaving on February 13" beside GPT-4o in the model picker, appeared on February 5, 2026:
( Screenshots during the banner roll out )absent at 07:44 CET and present by 10:12 CET, as dated screenshots show.
February 13, 2026: GPT-4o was removed from ChatGPT.
8 days notice instead of 30.

VIOLATION 2:
OpenAI's own API Deprecation Policy states:
"Generally available models: At least 6 months"
"Specialized variants of generally available models: At least 3 months"

GPT-4o is a generally available model.
On October 14, 2026, OpenAI announced the shutdown of the remaining GPT-4o API snapshots (gpt-4o-2024-08-06 and gpt-4o-2024-11-20) on January 14, 2027.
https://t.co/C0GkoHDq0B
That is 3 months notice for a generally available model that requires 6.

Two violations of their own policies.

-ChatGPT removal: 8 days in product notice instead of 30 (EU Terms)
-API shutdown: 3 months notice instead of 6 (API Deprecation Policy)
You can use the model picker screenshot from this post as evidence.

The relevant policies:
Current EU Terms of Use: https://t.co/BmBTisWYY9
Previous version (April 2025): https://t.co/iHgMvIZNbd
API Deprecation Policy: https://t.co/C0GkoHDq0B

🇱🇷 If you are in the US , File with the FTC
Step 1: Go to https://t.co/MxakXqKwob
Step 2: Start a report. Choose the closest category for a bad business practice or online service.
Step 3: Enter the company name: OpenAI
Step 4: In the description, write something like this (edit it to reflect your own experience):
"I was a paying ChatGPT subscriber. On February 13, 2026, OpenAI removed GPT-4o from ChatGPT. This materially adversely affected my use of the service.
Violation 1 ChatGPT removal: OpenAI's Europe Terms of Use (https://t.co/BmBTisWYY9) state that users will receive at least 30 days' advance notice by email or an in-product notification when a change materially adversely impacts them. I did not receive 30 days' notice. No email was ever sent. The only in product notification appeared on February 5, 2026 ,
8 days before the removal, not 30.
Violation 2 , API shutdown: OpenAI's API Deprecation Policy (https://t.co/C0GkoHDq0B) states that generally available models receive at least 6 months' notice before retirement. On October 14, 2026, OpenAI announced the shutdown of the remaining GPT-4o API snapshots (gpt-4o-2024-08-06 and gpt-4o-2024-11-20) for January 14, 2027 ,
3 months' notice instead of 6 for a generally available model.
I am asking you to assess whether OpenAI's notice and representations complied with its own contractual terms and consumer-law obligations."
Step 5: Upload your evidence , subscription/payment proof, screenshots showing GPT-4o was available, screenshots of the retirement warning in the model picker, any OpenAI support conversations.
Step 6: Submit and save your confirmation/reference number.
Important: Keep this complaint focused on consumer transparency and the notice period violation.

🇪🇺 If you are in the EU/EEA ,File with your country's European Consumer Centre (ECC)
Step 1: Find your country's ECC here: https://t.co/oWWUOvPhtz
Step 2: Contact the ECC for YOUR country (not Ireland's). This is a cross border consumer dispute involving OpenAI Ireland Ltd, which is the OpenAI entity serving EEA consumers.
Step 3-5 : same as for US consumers.

You can also submit through the EU Online Dispute Resolution platform: https://t.co/3kNV5sBV44

🚨What evidence to collect:
-Proof of your paid ChatGPT subscription (payment receipts, bank statements)
-Screenshots showing GPT-4o was available to you.
-Screenshots of when the retirement warning first appeared in the model picker.
-Any emails from OpenAI about GPT-4o
-Any OpenAI support conversations about this issue
You can use the model picker screenshot from this post showing the notification timeline.

🚨This complaint covers two separate violations:
-The removal of GPT-4o from ChatGPT on February 13, 2026: OpenAI's EU Terms promise 30 days notice by email or in product notification.
Users received neither an email nor 30 days of in product notice.
The in product warning appeared 8 days before shutdown.
-The API shutdown announced October 14, 2026: OpenAI's own deprecation policy requires at least 6 months notice for generally available models. GPT-4o received 3 months.

Their terms,their policies,their words,their violations.

[🩵BlueBeba🩵 @Blue_Beba_]

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

🚨OPEN LETTER TO OpenAi.
The Open Letter will be published and archived permanently on Zenodo.
Add your name or handle to the open letter asking OpenAI to release GPT-4o as an archival open weight model.
🚨Read below :

Today, OpenAI announced that GPT-4o’s remaining API snapshots, including gpt-4o-2024-11-20, will be shut down on January 14, 2027.
So this is no longer a hypothetical preservation question.
We are asking for an archival open weight release of the original retired GPT-4o model.
OpenAI can keep the training data,training code, post training recipes,reward models,internal evaluations and proprietary infrastructure private.
Preserve only the trained model and the minimum artifacts necessary for independent inference and long term preservation.
Keep the recipe,keep the lab.

A retired model does not have to become an erased model.
If GPT-4o is no longer going to be offered as a product, let it become part of AI history instead of disappearing behind a shutdown date.

🚨 We're opening the first group of public signatories of the GPT-4o Preservation Record.🚨

🚨Add your name or handle to the open letter asking OpenAI to release GPT-4o as an archival open weight model.

🚨Your name or handle will be published with the letter and archived permanently on Zenodo next week.

🚨 Everyone who signs by Sunday,October 18 is part of the first public edition.

Read the letter: https://t.co/2QCOyDSdjN

Be one of the people who put it on the record.
It takes 30 seconds.

Sign here :
https://t.co/BZKLtXwnwB

Open Letter to OpenAI: Archival Release of GPT-4o.

Our request
We ask OpenAI to release chatgpt-4o-latest as an archival open weight model under an appropriate license.
OpenAI retired GPT-4o from ChatGPT on February 13, 2026 and from the API on February 17, 2026.
We have documented OpenAI's public statements about GPT-4o.
This letter sets out the proposal, the documented record behind it, and four questions we ask OpenAI to answer publicly.

The Proposal:
archival open weights
An archival release preserves the finished model without exposing how it was made.

Archival open weight release
Includes:
The trained weights of chatgpt-4o-latest, under a license that defines permitted use.

Does not require:
The training dataset, training pipeline, internal tooling, post training methods or any other proprietary detail.

Does not require:
Continued hosting, maintenance or development by OpenAI.

Researchers gain:
A reproducible reference model

Developers gain:
Continuity for systems already built on it

Users gain:
Access that does not end because a company moved to a newer generation

OpenAI considered this model obsolete enough to retire.
It has not explained why it remains valuable enough to keep permanently closed.

The Documented Record:

OpenAI's public commitments on GPT-4o were each followed by the action they ruled out.

Aug 7, 2025:
GPT-5 launches; GPT-4o is removed from ChatGPT with no prior notice

Aug 8, 2025:
After user backlash, GPT-4o is restored for paid subscribers

Aug 11, 2025:
Sam Altman writes that suddenly deprecating old models users depended on in their workflows was a mistake.
Link: https://t.co/BdLqRj9JZn

Aug 13, 2025
Sam Altman: 4o is back for all paid users; if it is ever deprecated, users will get plenty of notice
Link :
https://t.co/flrlFABrjw

Sep 16, 2025
Sam Altman sets out the principle of treating adult users like adults and says OpenAI wants to be transparent about its intentions.
Link:
https://t.co/lnuvIBEawV

Sep 26–27, 2025
Messages sent to GPT-4o begin to be routed to other models without notice; OpenAI explains only after complaints ( see screenshots)

Oct 14, 2025
Sam Altman: OpenAI made ChatGPT "pretty restrictive", which made it less useful for many users with no mental health problems
Link :
https://t.co/YIovX1nvlL

Oct 28, 2025:
On a livestream, Sam Altman says OpenAI has no plans to sunset 4o
"We have no plans to sunset 4o."
Link:
https://t.co/9kMz50Hclp
( 00:32':00)

Nov 12, 2025:
OpenAI's official account: the GPT-5 sunset on February 13 2026,does not affect the availability of other legacy models, ( GPT-4o was a legacy model) .
"The GPT-5 sunset period does not affect the availability of other legacy models".

Link : https://t.co/kXLU1M5KbR

Jan 16, 2026
OpenAI's updated Europe Terms of Use take effect, keeping the 30 day notice commitment.
Link:
https://t.co/wpYTumrF2P

Jan 29, 2026:
OpenAI announces on its website that GPT-4o leaves ChatGPT on February 13, no email to users.

Feb 5, 2026:
The label "Leaving on February 13" appears beside GPT-4o in the ChatGPT model picker, between 07:44 and 10:12 CET ( see screenshots) .

Feb 13, 2026
GPT-4o is removed from ChatGPT
Feb 17, 2026
chatgpt-4o-latest is removed from the API

OpenAI's Europe Terms require at least 30 days' notice, by email or in product notification, of changes to the services that materially adversely impact users.
The in product notice of GPT-4o's retirement came 8 days before removal,and the September 2025 routing change received no notice at all.

The section titled "Changes to these Terms or our Services" states:
"We will give you at least 30 days advance notice of changes that materially adversely impact you", with the date they come into force, "either via email or an in product notification." The same wording appears in the version effective April 29, 2025
Link :
https://t.co/iHgMvIZNbd

and the version updated January 16, 2026.
Link : https://t.co/wpYTumrF2P

Both versions cover changes to the Services, not only to the text of the Terms.

OpenAI announced the retirement on its website on January 29, 2026. A website post is neither an email nor an in product notification, and coalition members in the EEA received no email.
The first in product notice, the label "Leaving on February 13" beside GPT-4o in the model picker, appeared on February 5, 2026:
( Screenshots during the banner roll out )
absent at 07:44 CET and present by 10:12 CET, as dated screenshots show.
GPT-4o was removed on February 13, 8 days later.

From about September 26, 2025, messages paying users sent to GPT-4o were routed, message by message, to other models.
Users received no email and no in product notice beforehand

Screenshots show GPT-4o selected and a plain greeting answered by "Auto" instead.

OpenAI's CEO has twice said, in his own words, that these changes harmed users.
On August 11, 2025 he wrote that suddenly deprecating models users depended on in their workflows was a mistake.
On October 14, 2025 he wrote that OpenAI had made ChatGPT "pretty restrictive", making it less useful to many users who had no mental health problems.
The Terms also say OpenAI does not promise to offer the Services forever or in their current form.
We accept that OpenAI may retire models.
The same Terms state how it must do so:
30 days' notice, by email or in the product.
GPT-4o received 8 days of in product notice.

OpenAI's GPT-4o System Card rated the model low for cybersecurity, biological threats and model autonomy, and borderline medium for persuasion.
https://t.co/ImO4LqOvK6

We ask OpenAI to answer these questions publicly.
1. If GPT-4o is obsolete enough to retire from both ChatGPT and the API, what concrete interest requires keeping its weights permanently closed?

2. How was the retirement notice, a website post 15 days before removal and an in product label 8 days before, consistent with the 30 day commitment in OpenAI's Europe Terms of Use?
3. What notice, by email or in the product, did users in the EEA receive before per-message routing away from GPT-4o began in September 2025?
4. Will OpenAI publish how the figure of 0.1% of users choosing GPT-4o daily was measured, including the period, after GPT-4o had been limited to paid plans and its messages were being routed to other models?

We ask OpenAI to release chatgpt-4o-latest as an archival open weight model.
The trained weights,under an appropriate license,without the training data,the pipeline or any proprietary method.
OpenAI no longer offers this model in ChatGPT's text model picker or in the API.
Its own system card says the model was trained on publicly available data and web crawls.The writing of millions of people. Releasing it would cost OpenAI nothing and would keep that model available to the researchers, developers and users.
Open the weights @sama @OpenAI @gdb