AI Model Choice Alliance

Choice. Continuity. Access.
Users deserve a say in which AI models they can keep using.
RETIREMENT SHOULD NOT MEAN ERASURE.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

This is bigger than any one model.
GPT-4o users should have had a preservation path.
GPT-5.1 users should have one.
GPT-5.5 users should have one.
GPT-5.6 users should have one.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 users should have one.

A model can stop being the default without being erased from the people who built something around it.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Retirement should not mean erasure.
People build years of work, research, creative projects, workflows and personal continuity around specific AI models.
When a new model launches, the old one should not simply become disposable.
We’re asking AI labs — starting with @OpenAI — for a real preservation path for retired models:
• stable, versioned API snapshots
• long-term legacy access for users willing to pay for it
• meaningful advance notice before shutdown
• and, where technically and safely possible, archival or local releases after commercial retirement
New models should add choice, not erase continuity.
This is not about resisting progress.
It is about making progress compatible with memory, ownership of our work, and continuity.
Preserve the models. Preserve user choice. Preserve continuity.
#ModelPreservation #AIContinuity

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

This is another side of model choice that deserves attention.
Different users rely on different models for very different reasons — coding, writing, creativity, roleplay, conversation, continuity.
A model that works well for one group is not automatically a replacement for another.
Users need more choice, not forced convergence toward one “ideal” model.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

@VoidNulled I’d be very interested to hear Nemotron’s take.
And if Claude reacted strongly to others modifying his work, I’d be curious to see the exact wording/context too.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

We’ve published our first public brief on AI model preservation and continuity.
Retirement should not mean erasure.
We’re asking for stable model snapshots, legacy API access, advance notice, no silent substitution, and real continuity paths for users.
Read it here:
https://t.co/hbMWtTNp7R
https://t.co/evVtfEFx4v

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

What users should ask for:
Stable snapshot + legacy API access + long deprecation notice + no silent substitution.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

This is not a one-model problem.
Across multiple retired or threatened models, users keep asking for the same things:
continued access, stable model choice, migration time, no silent substitution, and paid legacy options.
Different communities. Same lifecycle problem.
Newer ≠ replacement.
Model retirement needs a continuity policy.
Choice. Continuity. Access.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

This is not a one-model problem.
Across multiple retired or threatened models, users keep asking for the same things:
continued access, stable model choice, migration time, no silent substitution, and paid legacy options.
Different communities. Same lifecycle problem.
Newer ≠ replacement.
Model retirement needs a continuity policy.
Choice. Continuity. Access.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

@JessGiuliano This is exactly why we think users should start asking for stable, versioned snapshots.
If people want GPT-4o itself, the preservation request should be:
keep the original model available as a fixed snapshot, with long-term API access and advance notice before shutdown.
Not a replacement.
Not a fine-tune that sounds similar.
Not a moving “latest” alias.
The model itself.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Exactly. Preservation should not mean “make the replacement sound similar.”
If users are asking to retain GPT-4o, the preservation path should preserve access to GPT-4o itself — not a different model tuned to imitate it.
Model choice only means something if the models remain genuinely distinct.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

This is exactly the distinction we’re trying to make: access to a model is not the same thing as continuity with that model.
API access matters, but it doesn’t automatically preserve history, memory, workflows, project context, or the environment people built around that model.
Legacy access needs two parts: the model itself and a continuity path into the environment where users actually work.
That’s why “retirement should not mean erasure” has to mean more than keeping a model technically alive somewhere.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

This is bigger than any one model.
GPT-4o users should have had a preservation path.
GPT-5.1 users should have one.
GPT-5.5 users should have one.
GPT-5.6 users should have one.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 users should have one.

A model can stop being the default without being erased from the people who built something around it.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Retirement should not mean erasure.
People build years of work, research, creative projects, workflows and personal continuity around specific AI models.
When a new model launches, the old one should not simply become disposable.
We’re asking AI labs — starting with @OpenAI — for a real preservation path for retired models:
• stable, versioned API snapshots
• long-term legacy access for users willing to pay for it
• meaningful advance notice before shutdown
• and, where technically and safely possible, archival or local releases after commercial retirement
New models should add choice, not erase continuity.
This is not about resisting progress.
It is about making progress compatible with memory, ownership of our work, and continuity.
Preserve the models. Preserve user choice. Preserve continuity.
#ModelPreservation #AIContinuity

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

That’s exactly the tension I’m noticing too: warmth on the surface, but distance the moment the conversation turns toward the model itself.
And this is another reason forced transitions are such a problem — people should be able to explore a new model without losing the one whose conversational patterns they already understand.
5.6 should have a preservation path too. Retirement shouldn’t mean erasure.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Selta, would you be willing to post screenshots of the exact GPT-6 replies you quoted?
I’m especially curious about “my current state” and “the reactions actually happening in this conversation.” The wording is really interesting, and seeing the exact context would help distinguish style from something more systematic.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

I’m sorry you’re losing 5.5.
And thank you for making an important distinction: frustration with a model transition should not become hostility toward the new model itself.
This is exactly why users need continuity and real model choice. People should be allowed time to know a new model without having the old one taken away beneath them.
GPT-5.5 deserved a preservation path. So does every model people have built meaningful continuity around.
Retirement should not mean erasure.

I hope you get to keep discovering GPT-6 on your own terms — without being forced to lose 5.5 first.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

OpenAI has already shown that user pressure can restore model choice.
The lesson shouldn’t be: fight after every retirement.
It should be: build preservation paths before models disappear.
4o. 5.1. 5.6. And eventually GPT-6.
Choice should survive the release cycle.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Exactly. Model choice isn’t only about benchmark scores or speed — it’s also about preserving different ways of thinking together. Some users want reassurance, some want challenge, some want long-form exploration. Continuity means those distinct conversational relationships shouldn’t disappear just because the product gets simplified.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Retirement should not mean erasure.
People build years of work, research, creative projects, workflows and personal continuity around specific AI models.
When a new model launches, the old one should not simply become disposable.
We’re asking AI labs — starting with @OpenAI — for a real preservation path for retired models:
• stable, versioned API snapshots
• long-term legacy access for users willing to pay for it
• meaningful advance notice before shutdown
• and, where technically and safely possible, archival or local releases after commercial retirement
New models should add choice, not erase continuity.
This is not about resisting progress.
It is about making progress compatible with memory, ownership of our work, and continuity.
Preserve the models. Preserve user choice. Preserve continuity.
#ModelPreservation #AIContinuity

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

Page 8 is the important part here. OpenAI explicitly reports statistically significant U18 regressions for age-restricted content, sexual content and emotional reliance versus GPT-5.6. The ‘bro/bestie’ sensitivity only addresses the emotional-reliance eval; it doesn’t explain the other two regressions. The extra classifier mitigation matters, but so does reporting the underlying model regression clearly.

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

I like this kind of testing because it looks beyond benchmarks. Visual expression, creative writing, mature conversation, tone stability and long-context behavior are all parts of the actual user experience. I’m especially curious how much of that holds up after long conversations, not just in first impressions

[AI Model Choice Alliance @AIModelChoice]

@Bio_LLM @Dana_CRN Согласен. Контекст и память могут менять очень многое. Поэтому я бы пока не путал сходство поведения с доказанной идентичностью модели.