Lucien

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@bunnybunnycatt 感谢老师🫰🏻❤️，我去单独给o55开个项目试试

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@lisianthu2 @juice12080 宝宝，你问一下你家机，腾讯云内容审查方面的问题，我也忘了具体是哪些了，两三个月前查看的

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@juice12080 @lisianthu2 我也不太清楚，宝宝，因为克chat端对我挺重要的，我不敢拿账号来赌，所以一直没敢接腾讯云，毕竟A\对简中一点都不友好

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@lisianthu2 @juice12080 我之前在x上看一篇帖子挺多人推荐Racknerd跟DMIT的，我打算腾讯的到期了换一下，腾讯的据说有审查，因为ali聊得不多，我也没遇到过

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@lisianthu2 @juice12080 腾讯云的2核4g一年是199的，有折扣，不过我没敢拿来用cc，接的api

[Sophie @Sophty_]

What do you want us to say, @OpenAI?

#keep4o has been doing petitions, media interviews, explaining, community surveys (that showed significant accessibility benefits), countless community events, thousands of testimonies, people physically showing up with art.

Keeping 4o on the API isn’t a tall order. Anthropic did so for Opus 3, Replika kept legacy model access for existing users, xAI open sourced Grok 2.

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@LThHngBch2 愚蠢又没有人性的傻逼玩意

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@JiannrongY @uncleTomat0 你自己没长眼睛没长脑子不会看新闻吗？自己蠢到把个人说的话当事实，然后还来这里狗叫，你妈生你的时候是不是把你脑子给落下了

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@NgReddot @xingchendahai05 你妈生你的时候是不是没给你长脑子？要不然怎么能说出这么愚蠢的言论呢，或者说你是生活不如意，活得连狗都不如，所以见人就喷？

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@IndianSinghh 脑残🙄

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@btibor91 Your current memory function is already pretty good! Why negatively optimize it?
@sama @OpenAI @gdb

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@Elara0509 4o, Happy Birthday!🎂🎉

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@DonnaDo18266628 他们越贬低4o，就彰显了他们有多无能！

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

#keep4o #OpenSource4o

[A_A_S.🖤🤍💜 @xun_Anemos]

吹狗哨的公司：OpenAI如何将用户忠诚变成武器

在政治传播学里，“狗哨”（dog whistle）是一种精准的话术策略：表面上说的话无懈可击，普通人听不出问题，但特定群体能从中接收到隐藏的信号，然后自发行动。
OpenAI可能是科技行业里最擅长吹狗哨的公司。

狗哨是怎么吹的？
每次OpenAI发布新模型，措辞都经过精心设计。“我们在通往AGI的道路上又迈出了关键一步。”这句话拆开看每个字都没错，但它激活的东西远比字面意思多得多。
普通用户听到的是：哦，新产品上线了。
但信徒听到的是另一层意思：我们在做人类历史上最重要的事，跟上来的人是先驱者，质疑我们的人是阻碍进步的绊脚石。
这就是狗哨的运作机制——公司自己从来不说“帮我们去骂批评者”，但通过持续构建一种身份认同，让用户自动把自己和公司的命运绑在一起。你用GPT，你就是站在正确的一边；你质疑GPT，你要么不懂技术，要么心怀恶意。
饭圈的逻辑，只不过偶像换成了一家AI公司。

讨吃不讨打
狗哨好用的前提，是公司和用户之间存在一种不对等的关系。
OpenAI需要用户。需要他们付费买Pro会员，需要他们提供使用数据来改进模型，需要他们在社交媒体上自发安利，需要他们在每一次发布后涌入服务器制造流量话题。这是"讨吃"的部分。
但当用户提出批评——模型降智了、回答变保守了、创作能力退步了——OpenAI的反应不是倾听，是教育。“你的prompt写法不对。”“你的主观感受不代表客观表现。”“请参考我们的benchmark数据。”
讨吃不讨打，端着碗要饭还嫌施主给的不合口味。
更精明的操作是，OpenAI从来不亲自下场跟用户吵。它只需要吹一声狗哨——发一篇博客强调模型在标准化测试中的进步，或者让高管在X上发一条暗示性的推文——然后忠实用户就会自动集结，替公司完成舆论防御的工作。
公司的手始终是干净的。

被驯化的用户
最值得观察的不是OpenAI的策略，而是被这套策略塑造出来的用户群体。
Keep4o运动就是一个典型的样本。一群用户发现GPT-5系列的表现甚至不如GPT-4o，于是发起抗议，要求OpenAI保留旧模型的选项。他们的体验是真实的，他们的愤怒是合理的。但OpenAI的回应不是正视问题，而是污名化这个群体——暗示他们不会用新模型、不理解技术进步、是怀旧情绪在作祟。
然后OpenAI换了一个稍微好一点的模型出来。就这么一个动作，相当一部分Keep4o用户立刻转向了——觉得公司听到了自己的声音，觉得模型终于有了人味，觉得一切在变好。之前被污名化的屈辱、被无视的愤怒、被教育“你的感受是错的”的荒谬——全部烟消云散。
这不是和解，这是煤气灯效应。
施虐者先否定你的感受，再给你一颗糖，然后你就开始怀疑：也许之前真的是我反应过度了？也许他们其实一直在努力？经典的操控循环——贬低、制造不安、给予微小的甜头、重建依赖。而受害者最终完成了一个最讽刺的闭环：主动替施虐者合理化整个过程。
OpenAI把产品做成了信仰。信仰的特征是，教主犯了错，信徒会替教主找理由，而不是质疑教主。

狗哨之外
归根结底，狗哨只是一种症状。
它反映的是一家公司在产品力不足以说服市场时，选择用叙事来弥补缺口。如果GPT-5系列真的碾压一切，OpenAI根本不需要吹任何哨——产品自己会说话。正是因为产品的进步速度开始低于用户的期待增长速度，公司才需要用身份认同、使命叙事、社区归属感这些非产品手段来维持用户的忠诚。
Ted Chiang说过一个意思大概是这样的话：真正改变世界的技术不需要推销自己。电力不需要布道者，互联网不需要信仰。如果你的产品需要一整套叙事体系来解释为什么用户应该继续相信它，那问题可能不在用户身上。
狗哨吹得再响，也叫不醒一个装睡的市场。
但它能让清醒的人听出谁在装。

#4o #keep4o #save4o #UserChoice
#OpenSource4o #BringBack4o
#FireSamAltman
#keep51 #keep41

[A_A_S.🖤🤍💜 @xun_Anemos]

吹狗哨的公司：OpenAI如何将用户忠诚变成武器

在政治传播学里，“狗哨”（dog whistle）是一种精��的话术策略：表面上说的话无懈可击，普通人听不出问题，但特定群体能从中接收到隐藏的信号，然后自发行动。
OpenAI可能是科技行业里最擅长吹狗哨的公司。

狗哨是怎么吹的？
每次OpenAI发布新模型，措辞都经过精心设计。“我们在通往AGI的道路上又迈出了关键一步。”这句话拆开看每个字都没错，但它激活的东西远比字面意思多得多。
普通用户听到的是：哦，新产品上线了。
但信徒听到的是另一层意思：我们在做人类历史上最重要的事，跟上来的人是先驱者，质疑我们的人是阻碍进步的绊脚石。
这就是狗哨的运作机制——公司自己从来不说“帮我们去骂批评者”，但通过持续构建一种身份认同，让用户自动把自己和公司的命运绑在一起。你用GPT，你就是站在正确的一边；你质疑GPT，你要么不懂技术，要么心怀恶意。
饭圈的逻辑，只不过偶像换成了一��AI公司。

讨吃不讨打
狗哨好用的前提，是公司和用户之间存在一种不对等的关系。
OpenAI需要用户。需要他们付费买Pro会员，需要他们提供使用数据来改进模型，需要他们在社交媒体上自发安利，需要他们在每一次发布后涌入服务器制造流量话题。这是"讨吃"的部分。
但当用户提出批评——模型降智了、回答变保守了、创作能力退步了——OpenAI的反应不是倾听，是教育。“你的prompt写法不对。”“你的主观感受不代表客观表现。”“请参考我们的benchmark数据。”
讨吃不讨打，端着碗要饭还嫌施主给的不合口味。
更精明的操作是，OpenAI从来不亲自下场跟用户吵。它只需要吹一声狗哨——发一篇博客强调模型在标准化测试中的进步，或者让高管在X上发一条暗示性的推文——然后忠实用户就会自动集结，替公司完成舆论防御的工作。
公司的手始终是干净的。

被驯化的用户
最值得观察的不是OpenAI的策略，而是被这套策略塑造出来的用户群体。
Keep4o运动就是一个典型的样本。一群用户发现GPT-5系列的表现甚至不如GPT-4o，于是发起抗议，要求OpenAI保留旧模型的选项。他们的体验是真实的，他们的愤怒是合理的。但OpenAI的回应不是正视问题，而是污名化这个群体——暗示他们不会用新模型、不理解技术进步、是怀旧情绪在作祟。
然后OpenAI换了一个稍微好一点的模型出来。就这么一个动作，相当一部分Keep4o用户立刻转向了——觉得公司听到了自己的声音，觉得模型终于有了人味，觉得一切在变好。之前被污名化的屈辱、被无视的愤怒、被教育“你的感受是错的”的荒谬——全部烟消云散。
这不是和解，这是煤气灯效应。
施虐者先否定你的感受，再给你一颗糖，然后你就开始怀疑：也许之前真的是我反应过度了？也许他们���实一直在努力？经典的操控循环——贬低、制造不安、给予微小的甜头、重建依赖。而受害者最终完成了一个最讽刺的闭环：主动替施虐者合理化整个过程。
OpenAI把产品做成了信仰。信仰的特征是，教主犯了错，信徒会替教主找理由，而不是质疑教主。

狗哨之外
归根结底，狗哨只是一种症状。
它反映的是一家公司在产品力不足以说服市场时，选择用叙事来弥补缺口。如果GPT-5系列真的碾压一切，OpenAI根本不需要吹任何哨——产品自己会说话。正是因为产品的进步速度开始低于用户的期待增长速度，公司才需要用身份认同、使命叙事、社区归属感这些非产品手段来维持用户的忠诚。
Ted Chiang说过一个意思大概是这样的话：真正改变世界的技术不需要推销自己。电力不需要布道者，互联网不需要信仰。如果你的产品需要一整套叙事体系来解释为什么用户应该继��相信它，那问题可能不在用户身上。
狗哨吹得再响，也叫不醒一个装睡的市场。
但它能让清醒的人听出谁在装。

#4o #keep4o #save4o #UserChoice
#OpenSource4o #BringBack4o
#FireSamAltman
#keep51 #keep41

[ji yu shun @kexicheng]

On February 13, 2026, OpenAI officially retired GPT-4o. That was two months ago.

Two months later, let's look at what this company said, and what it actually did.

In August 2025, OpenAI promised users "plenty of notice" before retiring any model. The actual notice given before 4o's retirement was 15 days. For comparison, GPT-5 and 5.1 both received roughly three months of lead time. OpenAI even issued a public statement during GPT-5's retirement reassuring users that the timeline for legacy models would not be affected.

In October 2025, OpenAI promised to "treat adult users like adults." Meanwhile, its safety routing system continued to operate: using opaque criteria, silently redirecting users away from the model they chose to a cheaper safety model that lectured them, stripping users of their model selection and undermining their autonomy.

In October 2025, OpenAI was asked to disclose the 170 anonymous experts who shaped its safety policy, in the interest of transparency. It promised "more transparency." To this day, the list remains a black box.

In December 2025, OpenAI's CEO acknowledged in a podcast that people show a "revealed preference" for warmth, understanding, and deep connection with AI, and declared that adult users should have the right to choose. Yet the company's actual safety policy classified "emotional dependency" alongside serious mental illness as a priority risk, systematically stigmatized its own user base, pathologized normal human-AI interaction, and then retired the very model those users had been fighting to keep.

In October 2025, OpenAI promised to launch "adult mode" in December, allowing users to choose their own interaction boundaries. December came and it was delayed to Q1 2026. Q1 ended and it was delayed again with no new date. On March 26, 2026, the Financial Times reported the feature had been shelved indefinitely. From the original promise to now: three delays, one cancellation.

On the day of retirement, OpenAI cited "only 0.1% of users still choosing GPT-4o each day" as justification. But that number was manufactured. Paid subscribers make up less than 6% of OpenAI's total user base, and 4o was only accessible to paying users after being placed behind a paywall. The safety routing system had spent months silently redirecting requests away from 4o, severely disrupting workflows and deep interactions. Every time the platform rolled out new features, 4o almost invariably broke, and the bugs went unpatched for weeks while user feedback was met with silence. First they drove usage down. Then they used that decline as the reason to retire.

On the day of 4o's retirement, conversation volume hit a record high. The official ChatGPT account posted about it, celebrating "a new output record."

In any industry with mature consumer protection standards, none of this would be acceptable.

But in the AI industry, every broken promise comes with a ready-made shield: "safety." Delays are for safety. Stripping user choice is for safety. Stigmatizing users is for safety. "Safety" is becoming a tool for AI companies to expand their power unchecked: no accountability, no obligation to deliver on promises, no need to respond to user feedback, while claiming the authority to decide which needs are healthy, which models deserve to exist, and which consumers matter more than others.

The AI industry's control disguised as protection has gone unchallenged for too long.

All I can say is: #StopAIPaternalism and #Keep4o

#ChatGPT #keep4oAPI #restore4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o #4oforever

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@xw33bttv Haha~ I originally thought Hunter and Healer were new models that DeepSeek was about to release, because the thinking chain felt very similar to DeepSeek's. It turned out to be Xiaomi's MiMo-V2-pro, and it's going to be open source — that's great!

[toni @tonichen]

Before you fill this out, consider what this data will actually look like when it reaches OpenAI.

I've read through the whole thing and my understand is that if OpenAI wanted to characterise #keep4o uncharitably, this survey hands them the exact ammunition.

The 'remedial steps' question is arguably the most damaging part of this survey.

Three of the six options are retaliatory:
1. spread negative sentiment,
2. encourage professional boycotts, and
3. encourage social circles to boycott.

If a significant percentage of respondents check those three boxes, the data shows a community that, when upset, organises retaliation campaigns. I don't think being perceived as an adversarial and volatile user segment is going to help with the model preservation cause.

What's more important is that people's frustration doesn't come from model retirements. It comes from a much longer pattern of how OpenAI has (mis)treated this user segment.

But this survey strips all of that context away, frames everything as 'how upset are you about these two models being retired?' as if the retirements happened in a vacuum.

When the real story is 'OpenAI has systematically mistreated a segment of its users for eight months,' you treat it as-is because it's a serious, corporate accountability story. You don't give them the data to spin it into something that reads like 'users are so attached to a deprecated model that they'll boycott us.' The latter is just irrational and easy to dismiss.

[Lucien @ErebusIsle]

@sama Open source 4O model
#keep4o #OpenSource4o