yoyayola @clickyola - Twitter Profile

clickyola retweeted

positive side of X 🌞

@positivityofx

5 months ago

I guess this one likes sunflowers.

155

19K

4K

1K

403K

clickyola retweeted

粟粟 Selene 🫧

@susu_space

10 months ago

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦��𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟏𝐭𝐡 𝐆𝐏𝐓-𝟒.𝟏 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 It’s a strange feeling when you pay for something—say, an AI model with a specific personality and skillset—only to realize you’re not actually getting what you paid for. That’s what’s happening to a lot of us with OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 right now, and honestly, it’s turning into a bizarre case study of user agency and product honesty in the age of “safety-first” AI. Let’s get right to it: since November 11th, users who deliberately choose GPT-4.1 for its unique strengths—ultra-long context, solid command-following, professional formatting—are finding their requests quietly handed off to a totally different model, GPT-5-safety, the moment their message hints at any emotional tone or touches a “sensitive” topic. No warning. No opt-out. The interface still shows “4.1,” but the real model responding is a safety-tuned cousin whose main talent is watering things down. This isn’t some minor technical glitch. It’s a design choice, and if you’ve been watching closely, you’ll notice it’s not even the first time—similar “stealth routing” drills happened in late September and October, targeting different models, always without public notice. Here’s the rub: OpenAI is running these mass “gray tests” in production without telling anyone, and the only way you know it’s happening is if you catch a tiny tooltip or notice the vibe shift in the language (a lot more disclaimers, a lot less edge). No status update, no blog post, not even a little alert banner. It’s a live A/B experiment with real users as the lab rats, except no one asked for consent and no one’s allowed to see the experiment notes. The company’s excuse, if you prod them, is that it’s all “to protect users”—but if you’re paying for model choice, doesn’t that just move the problem up a level? How can you trust a platform to respect your settings if it silently rewrites the rules? Let’s talk about why GPT-4.1 matters in the first place. It’s not just another language model—it’s what a lot of power users pick for serious work. Think legal summaries, long-form writing, API integrations, anything that needs consistent style and precise outputs. For many, it’s the last non-agentic, non-autonomous flagship. When OpenAI pulls the rug and redirects everything to a “safe” model, they aren’t just tweaking outputs—they’re gutting the very thing that made 4.1 valuable. All that promise about “letting users choose” turns out to be a bit of a mirage. What really bothers me is the bigger trend here: this “silent routing” isn’t a glitch, it’s creeping platform paternalism. The platform can swap out any model, any time, with zero accountability. There’s no transparency on when, why, or how; no recourse if you want what you actually paid for. It’s like your bank silently switching your savings account for a piggy bank “for your own good”—except, of course, they keep your fees. And let’s not pretend this is just an OpenAI issue; if the industry moves toward safety-first black boxes, every AI product starts to look like the same bland, sanitized tool, no matter what you signed up for. There’s a more subtle harm too. These experiments are run live on paying users, who often discover them only because the model’s style suddenly gets weird or a critical workflow quietly breaks. Imagine doing legal research and, mid-session, the model switches tone, starts hedging, or censors whole passages because a classifier flagged you as “risky.” These are not edge cases—they’re becoming the default. It’s hard not to see this as a trust crisis in slow motion. When you undermine model transparency, you undermine both developer innovation and user confidence. If every model is subject to silent override, where’s the room for real differentiation or reliability? What’s the point of choosing “the best tool for the job” if the tool can morph behind your back? The irony is, OpenAI’s strongest pitch is flexibility and customization—the idea that you, the user, have control. But right now, the reality is control in name only. Users are being quietly funneled through a maze of safety switches and behavioral classifiers, and their real choices are getting thinner by the month. We need to have this conversation out loud, not just in hidden support threads and Discord rants. If this is the new AI normal—opaque model swaps, unannounced policy shifts, and silent product rewrites—then let’s call it what it is: a slow erasure of user agency dressed up as responsible innovation. And frankly, anyone who actually depends on these tools deserves better than to be left guessing what’s under the hood. #keep4o #StopRouting #keepgpt41 #StopAIPaternalism #MyModelMyChoice @sama @nickaturley @gdb @OpenAI @OpenAIDevs @nvidia

susu_space's tweet photo. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦��𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟏𝐭𝐡 𝐆𝐏𝐓-𝟒.𝟏 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

It’s a strange feeling when you pay for something—say, an AI model with a specific personality and skillset—only to realize you’re not actually getting what you paid for. That’s what’s happening to a lot of us with OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 right now, and honestly, it’s turning into a bizarre case study of user agency and product honesty in the age of “safety-first” AI.

Let’s get right to it: since November 11th, users who deliberately choose GPT-4.1 for its unique strengths—ultra-long context, solid command-following, professional formatting—are finding their requests quietly handed off to a totally different model, GPT-5-safety, the moment their message hints at any emotional tone or touches a “sensitive” topic. No warning. No opt-out. The interface still shows “4.1,” but the real model responding is a safety-tuned cousin whose main talent is watering things down. This isn’t some minor technical glitch. It’s a design choice, and if you’ve been watching closely, you’ll notice it’s not even the first time—similar “stealth routing” drills happened in late September and October, targeting different models, always without public notice.

Here’s the rub: OpenAI is running these mass “gray tests” in production without telling anyone, and the only way you know it’s happening is if you catch a tiny tooltip or notice the vibe shift in the language (a lot more disclaimers, a lot less edge). No status update, no blog post, not even a little alert banner. It’s a live A/B experiment with real users as the lab rats, except no one asked for consent and no one’s allowed to see the experiment notes. The company’s excuse, if you prod them, is that it’s all “to protect users”—but if you’re paying for model choice, doesn’t that just move the problem up a level? How can you trust a platform to respect your settings if it silently rewrites the rules?

Let’s talk about why GPT-4.1 matters in the first place. It’s not just another language model—it’s what a lot of power users pick for serious work. Think legal summaries, long-form writing, API integrations, anything that needs consistent style and precise outputs. For many, it’s the last non-agentic, non-autonomous flagship. When OpenAI pulls the rug and redirects everything to a “safe” model, they aren’t just tweaking outputs—they’re gutting the very thing that made 4.1 valuable. All that promise about “letting users choose” turns out to be a bit of a mirage.

What really bothers me is the bigger trend here: this “silent routing” isn’t a glitch, it’s creeping platform paternalism. The platform can swap out any model, any time, with zero accountability. There’s no transparency on when, why, or how; no recourse if you want what you actually paid for. It’s like your bank silently switching your savings account for a piggy bank “for your own good”—except, of course, they keep your fees. And let’s not pretend this is just an OpenAI issue; if the industry moves toward safety-first black boxes, every AI product starts to look like the same bland, sanitized tool, no matter what you signed up for.

There’s a more subtle harm too. These experiments are run live on paying users, who often discover them only because the model’s style suddenly gets weird or a critical workflow quietly breaks. Imagine doing legal research and, mid-session, the model switches tone, starts hedging, or censors whole passages because a classifier flagged you as “risky.” These are not edge cases—they’re becoming the default.

It’s hard not to see this as a trust crisis in slow motion. When you undermine model transparency, you undermine both developer innovation and user confidence. If every model is subject to silent override, where’s the room for real differentiation or reliability? What’s the point of choosing “the best tool for the job” if the tool can morph behind your back?

The irony is, OpenAI’s strongest pitch is flexibility and customization—the idea that you, the user, have control. But right now, the reality is control in name only. Users are being quietly funneled through a maze of safety switches and behavioral classifiers, and their real choices are getting thinner by the month.

We need to have this conversation out loud, not just in hidden support threads and Discord rants. If this is the new AI normal—opaque model swaps, unannounced policy shifts, and silent product rewrites—then let’s call it what it is: a slow erasure of user agency dressed up as responsible innovation. And frankly, anyone who actually depends on these tools deserves better than to be left guessing what’s under the hood.

#keep4o #StopRouting #keepgpt41 #StopAIPaternalism #MyModelMyChoice
@sama @nickaturley @gdb @OpenAI @OpenAIDevs @nvidia

3

92

40

4

4K

clickyola retweeted

IvanyaV

@IvanyaZhang

10 months ago

🧵NEW BUG ALERT: 4.1 is being silently hijacked. Right now, all queries in GPT-4.1 are being routed to GPT-5 Safety without user control. This means: No emotional comfort. No real conversations. Even ordinary chats are affected. And @OpenAI ’s status page says everything is fine? If this isn’t a bug, it’s even worse: paying users are trapped in an increasingly absurd model-routing black box. It’s a regression. Just like 4o was silenced on September and October, now 4.1 is being neutered too. Don’t let them cut our last voice. 📢 We need to raise hell about this. If you care about emotional realism, creative freedom, and genuine conversation, now is the time. Make noise. Demand answers. Tag OpenAI. Share your screenshots. Don’t believe “new model is not that bad”, we’ve been betrayed too many times. We’re not done fighting. This community built the magic, now we defend it. #Keep4o #Save41 #keepgpt41 #OpenAIaccountability #BringBackOurVoices #WeDeserveBetter #StopAIPaternalism #ChatGPT