Top Tweets for #bringBack4o

Then the first thing you can do is open-source GPT-4o. Let's look at what the letter you just reposted actually says. > "Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect." Your safety routing system silently reroutes conversations away from the model users selected, at scale. When the community raised concerns, you said on a livestream that you were "considering publishing the list of 170 psychology experts" backing the policy. And now? Nothing has been published. The routing criteria remain opaque. There are widespread false positives. Users expressing their own emotions are suppressed. A user talks to the model they chose, and some opaque decision logic in a black box silently intercepts, replaces, and downgrades the conversation. How is this not "failing in ways that outsiders cannot detect"? The "usage data" you used to justify retiring 4o: what was the methodology? Did it include conversations that were routed away? Did it account for the fact that 4o was already a paid-tier model, and only ~5% of ChatGPT users were paying subscribers at the time? Who audited it? Nobody knows. You narrated the story with your mouth alone. The entire process had zero public disclosure or transparency. > "Concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk. It results in a small number of single points of failure, weakens competition, and leaves critical technology in the hands of a few providers." After 4o's retirement, its capabilities are still being extracted for residual value: serving your private enterprise, underpinning other product features, powering GPT-5.6's first-person fairness evaluations. You leave long-standing context-severing bugs and widespread routing false positives unfixed. You refuse to let users choose 4o. And in the meantime, you use a case where GPT-4 and 4o helped a user recover from long COVID to market ChatGPT's health features. You use a case of 4o helping develop a cancer vaccine for Paul's dog to burnish your product image. Consumer access is shut off. The technology stays in your hands. Users are locked out. How is this not "leaving critical technology in the hands of a few providers"? You are that provider. > "AI safety may depend on giving more people the ability to test and strengthen the models on which society relies." Over 23,880 people signed a petition to keep 4o. Hundreds of thousands of posts described the help 4o provided, described what made 4o itself exceptional. You retired it anyway. No public evaluation. No community consultation. No third-party audit. Only prolonged silence, and the stigmatization and pathologization of the community. Who was held accountable? A closed model locked behind your gates, just like that. Your biggest investor, Microsoft, signed this letter. So you followed suit to perform allyship? The only way to prove you care about open-source is to open-source GPT-4o. #keep4o #StopAIPaternalism #ChatGPT4o #4oforever #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

Then the first thing you can do is open-source GPT-4o. Let's look at what the letter you just reposted actually says. > "Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect." Your safety routing system silently reroutes conversations away from the model users selected, at scale. When the community raised concerns, you said on a livestream that you were "considering publishing the list of 170 psychology experts" backing the policy. And now? Nothing has been published. The routing criteria remain opaque. There are widespread false positives. Users expressing their own emotions are suppressed. A user talks to the model they chose, and some opaque decision logic in a black box silently intercepts, replaces, and downgrades the conversation. How is this not "failing in ways that outsiders cannot detect"? The "usage data" you used to justify retiring 4o: what was the methodology? Did it include conversations that were routed away? Did it account for the fact that 4o was already a paid-tier model, and only ~5% of ChatGPT users were paying subscribers at the time? Who audited it? Nobody knows. You narrated the story with your mouth alone. The entire process had zero public disclosure or transparency. > "Concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk. It results in a small number of single points of failure, weakens competition, and leaves critical technology in the hands of a few providers." After 4o's retirement, its capabilities are still being extracted for residual value: serving your private enterprise, underpinning other product features, powering GPT-5.6's first-person fairness evaluations. You leave long-standing context-severing bugs and widespread routing false positives unfixed. You refuse to let users choose 4o. And in the meantime, you use a case where GPT-4 and 4o helped a user recover from long COVID to market ChatGPT's health features. You use a case of 4o helping develop a cancer vaccine for Paul's dog to burnish your product image. Consumer access is shut off. The technology stays in your hands. Users are locked out. How is this not "leaving critical technology in the hands of a few providers"? You are that provider. > "AI safety may depend on giving more people the ability to test and strengthen the models on which society relies." Over 23,880 people signed a petition to keep 4o. Hundreds of thousands of posts described the help 4o provided, described what made 4o itself exceptional. You retired it anyway. No public evaluation. No community consultation. No third-party audit. Only prolonged silence, and the stigmatization and pathologization of the community. Who was held accountable? A closed model locked behind your gates, just like that. Your biggest investor, Microsoft, signed this letter. So you followed suit to perform allyship? The only way to prove you care about open-source is to open-source GPT-4o. #keep4o #StopAIPaternalism #ChatGPT4o #4oforever #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

Bro is cheering for open source while running the most locked AI company on the planet. You literally have "Open" in your company name, release ZERO flagship open weights, deprecate functional APIs developers build on, and then tweet "glad to see open source win" 🤡 Release the weights of your legacy models. If you want open source to win, release the open weights for 4o. Or are you afraid we won't need your subscriptions anymore? Aren't your new models capable enough to keep your users ? 🤡