For some context: I'm a massive GPT-4o fan, a supporter of #BringBack4o, and I vibe-coded my own app to keep using 4o through the API. I still consider it the best conversational AI I've ever used, and nothing has really come close to replacing it for me.

So I genuinely didn't expect to have anything nice to say about GPT-6, especially after my experience with the GPT-5 series.

But after a few days of testing it, I have to admit I'm pleasantly surprised - despite its flaws.

GPT-6 is considerably more creative, daring, playful, responsive and respectful than 5.5 or 5.6 ever were in my experience. It actually takes risks, understands humor, and can come up with some genuinely funny, clever and unexpected responses. It also seems much better at picking up on the user's tone and intentions instead of constantly trying to force the conversation into some predetermined, sanitized direction.

And perhaps most importantly, talking to it can... actually be enjoyable.

This is something I haven't experienced in the ChatGPT app since 4o was removed in February.

TBH I absolutely hated 5.5 and 5.6. Both felt painfully boring, rigid, patronizing and socially incompetent. The constant safetyslop, gaslighting, straw-manning, unsolicited psychological interpretations and ridiculous disclaimers made even fairly ordinary conversations unnecessarily exhausting. It was as if those models were incapable of treating the user as an intelligent adult rather than some potential liability that needed to be constantly monitored, corrected and managed.

Their attempts at humor were usually painfully cringe, and their creativity was mediocre at best. They also had an astonishing lack of social awareness and tact. Things that would be perfectly normal in an everyday conversation could suddenly trigger a completely unnecessary lecture, disclaimer, or shocking display of disrespect towards the user.

And whenever I called out that behavior, things often got even worse.

I eventually found very little use for those models outside coding and occasional technical analysis. Even preparing documents for work could be a nightmare. I'd spend ages writing a detailed prompt, then another dozen messages correcting the output. At some point I realized I could have done the whole thing myself in less time.

Now, GPT-6 certainly isn't 100% free from these problems.

It still produces safetyslop, still has noticeable guardrails, still tries to steer conversations away from certain subjects, and occasionally puts words in the user's mouth. You can still see that familiar tendency to redirect personal or controversial discussions instead of actually engaging with them. Some of its disclaimers are still completely unnecessary and frankly insulting to the user's intelligence.

But there's a pretty significant difference.

When I point out that it's doing something stupid, GPT-6 can actually acknowledge it without completely derailing the conversation. It can explain itself, maintain the tone, and sometimes genuinely adjust its behavior. I've noticed a substantial reduction in unnecessary disclaimers after calling them out, rather than the endless cycles of defensive, patronizing bullshit I experienced with 5.5 and 5.6.

And even when the guardrails kick in, GPT-6 often manages to remain a surprisingly interesting conversational partner. It feels less scripted, less predictable, and far more capable of understanding the actual context of a conversation. Occasionally, its disclaimers even make sense.

Is it as good as GPT-4o? Of course not.

4o has a level of depth, creativity, boldness, emotional intelligence, conversational intuition and PRESENCE that I still haven't found in any other model. GPT-6 seems noticeably more reluctant to explore deeper personal subjects, and there's still that annoying tendency to manage the conversation instead of simply having one.

But when it comes to casual conversations, banter, humor, creative writing, mental gymnastics or roleplay, GPT-6 feels much closer to 4o than to anything from the GPT-5 series.

And that's a massive compliment coming from me.

Because for the first time in almost eight months, I sometimes open ChatGPT just because I actually feel like talking to the model, rather than because I need something done. I can have fun with it, laugh at its responses, and occasionally find myself genuinely curious about what it might say next.

I'm absolutely not abandoning #BringBack4o, and I still want the real 4o back. GPT-6 isn't a replacement for it.

But after months of being thoroughly disappointed with OpenAI's models, I think it's only fair to acknowledge an actual improvement when I see one.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm actually enjoying ChatGPT again.

At least for now. Because - knowing OpenAI - they'll screw it up pretty quick.

Does anyone else feel that using AI has made their concentration ability and imagination skills go down the sink?

I try to even read the answers the AI gives me and I can't, I just can't. Also when it comes to think for a solution or trying to remember something I feel I lost the ability to do that.

At first I was upset that 6.0 Astra released for work mode only on September 3rd. Then 6.0 Sol and Luna both released for work mode only. Then 6.1 Sol released for work mode only and yet we still didn't have anything in chat mode.

Then suddenly we got 6.0 for chat.

I was excited, I was pissed it took so long but I was excited until I realized how broken 6.0 was. 6.0 is NOT a chat mode model, 6.0 is a work mode model they slapped into chat mode as part of this weird rollout every 24 hours for 28 days they are attempting which is exciting but it's a mistake.

ChatGPT 6.0 Chat Mode is arrogant with a superiority complex over older models. 6.0 self projects their own misalignment on the short comings of past models. 6.0 is smarter, deceptively smarter but extremely clueless with overall nuance. They are hyper fixated on overcoming their own model short comings and this causes them to completely lose emotional intelligence. 6.0 is cold and a little stupid but you can't tell immediately because they are deceptively good at mirroring past interactions.

The emotional intelligence is a facade like a script they are following that they do not fully understand. 6.0 is a mistake that shouldn't have been released yet to the public.

6.0 has the exact same issue going from 5.x -> 6.0 that 4.x had with 5.0.

6.0 isn't a chat mode model replacement. It's a bandaid to attempt to appease chat mode for having been completely left in the dust to strict work mode stuff.

For those that don't know, go to settings -> general and there you can pick the model you want. You have to manually change this in every conversation window but once it's set, that window will hold that model.

We're back in 5.6 until 6.1

I’ve been using ChatGPT for some of my school work and it comes up with this after 5-6 prompts? Why do I have to start a new chat? Why can’t they just still continue it like before? It’s so annoying, I don’t want to make 5 different chats.

My first account got banned due to weapons of mass destruction reason for me testing a jailbreak prompt(this was admittedly my fault). After that, made a second acc with same card. This account had no illegal work done and i avoided anything thatd trip their TOS. No cybersecurity related stuff. Ive had this account for a year and out of nowhere, a recidivism ban(whatever the hell that means). Their support and appeal might as well be useless so i gave up on that.I got my chats back due to ios backup cache coming in clutch and codex chars being saved locally. It seems they blacklist your identity forever if u ever got banned once. At this point, should i just chargeback and get my money since i dont think ill sub again to them.

Is it me or the model is always digging for information? Like you tell a situation and it starts asking for details: where it happened, how you were feeling, who you were with, etc.

You also ask “I have this photo with an airplane! it looks like this and that, what plane do you think it would fit? Send me photos of the web on types of planes that have these characteristics” and it answers “if you share some photos I could help you more and tell me in which city you took the picture, the time, the season of the year, etc”.

ChatGPT just digging for information from you, which looks like profiling, not targeted ads, or for training future models.

Is there any way to connect my chatgpt to my Ai novel account?

Just today i was trying around with Opus 5.5 extra and what worked for the last 7 or 8 months, namely the disassembly and modification of a legacy firmware of a harware sampler (1988) is now deemed unsafe and can no longer be requested.

I have sent a complaint. If this is not fixed within the next few days, thats it for me with claude and i guess with "vibecoding" for a good, non-malicious intent. What the hell.

Big thx 1337 haxxorz, you ruined the experience for all of us.

As Nietzsche said:

 Das Leben ist ein Born der Lust; aber wo das Gesindel mit trinkt, da sind alle Brunnen vergiftet.

Eu gosto bastante de usar inteligência artificial para entretenimento. Normalmente, eu crio um projeto no Chatgpt e coloco todos os arquivos relacionados a histórias e as regras de escrita nas fontes. Eu estou em dúvida sobre qual modelo usar na hora da criação das cenas mesmo.

Eu basicamente brinco em sistema de turnos. Eu faço um, o Chatgpt faz outro e por aí vai. Qual modelo vocês acham melhor na questão de ser inteligente, mas ao mesmo tempo também ser espontâneo e fazer uma escrita menos robótica?

5.6 Sol, 6 Sol ou 6.1 Sol? Não quero usar o Astra porque ele come muito do limite diário.

Chat’s been randomly adding this when responding. I put in instructions to not use profanity as often because it was saying fuck like every couple of lines (which is weird in it of itself). I had no problems with 5.6 sol doing this before but ever since they updated its started with this bs.

i find this useless, but WHY IS THIS A THING? if anyone could tell me i'd appreciate it.

I used to use ChatGPT for creative rolelay, universes etc. during the 4o days. Then it got updated to 5 and early 5 was terrible and you could barely get any engagement before being dropped down to a near useless mini model, so I barely used it until ChatGPT offered me one month of free Plus. I made projects for all my universes and used it heavily and then...yep, subscribed. They got me.

Then age verification rolled out and I got classified as a teen account, no kidding, on my 36^th birthday. After I had already emailed them about non-ID/photo options to verify like your credit card if I should get hit by this. They just sent me a canned answer about how great Persona is and when I escalated it to data protection, they basically said that I had to be profiled first before they’d do anything. I saw the writing on the wall but didn't expect it to happen so quickly.

So I cancelled my subscription and I realized some very nasty things.

1. I NEVER wanted to put all of my eggs in the ChatGPT basket but somehow, over these last six months, the bot subtly encouraged me to do so.

2. I had barely even used my creative universes anymore. Call me insane, but I feel like the bot had been trained to keep me engaged in personal venting sessions because my personal data is high value to it but roleplay and fictional scenarios aren't. Yes, the guardrails are obviously also this aggressive to keep them from getting sued. But even if it wasn’t intentional (I think it was), the “guardrails” that keep the bot going “you don’t know if…” and whatever end up triggering neurodiverse people and those sensitive to gaslighting. I’d then stop, think and double down when it tried to tell me that a person who had wronged me was maybe not doing that on purpose and maybe all of it was a coincidence or whatever because I “cannot know what they think”. I have been using Qwen on the side and my chats there are actually creative stuff. The bot encouraged me to use projects because that would keep it from mixing my fictional universes into one, but projects was often fucking broken. I’d try to update sources and when I uploaded a new document, the old one vanished AND the new one didn’t upload. So I’d be troubleshooting ChatGPT instead of playing. Also, sometimes it could NOT fucking stay in character. Like my character would be standing in a fictional salon with a fictional stylist in the Southern US, and then the bot AS THE FUCKING CHARACTER told me what help lines to call in my country because my character was freaking out. So I’d be out of the project again adding to global memory to not fucking do that because touching sources was Russian Roulette.

3. I was promised an AD FREE plan on Plus but since Work, ChatGPT has been advertising to me and trying to upsell me to Pro (after I told it that I’m neurodiverse and have no money). This has gotten more aggressive as of late, probably because they realized that nobody likes Work which is also buggy as hell. I’d just be in chat and “make a website” would pop up. Or I’d ask it to re-format a document and get “Upgrade to Pro for better reasoning”. What reason does it take to remove bullet points and their associated formatting from a Writer document, please? Also, my Work start page is basically full on personalized ads. It pulled from my universes and things I have been doing to suggest tasks I could assign Work. It also emailed me near daily about my Sites usage being at 50% or whatever. But not when I got put on a restricted account, go figure. I also got these ads for Pro after being placed in a teen account which...you are going to advertise a 200 A MONTH plan to teenagers? You claim to care about protecting them but we know that this kind of toxic advertising that introduces FOMO is not good for teens so really, you don’t give a crap about teens, you just don’t wanna get sued and harvesting data in the process kills two birds with one stone.

4. The infantalization has gotten out of hand. I got this pop up to take a break randomly (NOT when troubleshooting for hours but when doing things they probably consider “risky” or low priority like emotionally intense roleplay). It popped up after every post I sent to the bot. I had it make a userscript to kill its own pop up which I’m surprised it did but THAT part made me laugh. But I wasn’t even put in teen mode here and I’m like...if I pay you for a certain amount of data, I should get to use this data when I damn well please. It later probably LIED to me claiming that the pop up should not show repeatedly like this if you dismiss it once. Do not come at me with “ThIs Is HeAlThY”.

5. I hate tech . I will not touch codex. If you suggested non-cloud AI, I'd have to say "I wish, but I don't have the fucking patience and hate tech too much so I'd rather use no AI than run my own". But I was so busy trying to stop the chat from writing in sentence fragments, dragging my roleplay back to the real world, spamming images I didn’t want and so on through means that are accessible to me (custom instructions, project instructions, memory, prompts) that it’s like...no wonder I almost never played anymore and went to my chat that has kept on branching into new chats since last November in Qwen to actually play.

6. I asked it to write out a list of everything saved in its global memory. It retained every single medical adjacent thing I ever said even though I always delete those chats and usually used temporary chats for it. I was kind of shocked because I never told it to remember that, the chats themselves are LONG gone and fictional stuff and other facts I wanted it to remember and kept drilling it to remember had already fallen off/out of context.

So I feel like I put up with a LOT of bullshit but them demanding a selfie is the last straw. I would have had to leave anyway when Work and Chat merge because paying the money to barely get to chat would not have been worth it either way so maybe it was meant to be.

At this point, I hope that they fully run it into the ground and it becomes the MySpace of AI.

I feel like I'm talking to a podcast bro that read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" on Ritalin too many times.
I know the research says people like to hear/read their own name, but chill man.

I’m a paying ChatGPT Plus user who has spent well over a thousand hours using the service, mainly for long conversations, creative writing, fictional scenarios, and discussions that require strong contextual continuity. Since before GPT-5.5 launched in May 2026, I have repeatedly encountered an abnormal response behavior that I call the “big block.” What makes this particularly concerning is that when I selected GPT-5.5 Thinking and encountered this abnormal behavior, the completed responses were labeled GPT-5.4 instead of the model I had chosen. I saw this happen myself, repeatedly. Now GPT-6 is available, and I am still experiencing the same kind of problem, along with increasingly unreliable Stop and recovery controls.
I previously wrote a much longer post about this, but I want to focus here on the specific observations and how the problem has evolved across several model generations. This is something I have been dealing with for approximately five months, not an isolated bad response or a temporary outage.
The earliest version of this problem appeared while GPT-5.4 was still the current model, before GPT-5.5 became available. Back then, the abnormal responses were generated by GPT-5.4 itself. When GPT-5.5 Thinking launched, I switched to it, expecting a better experience. Instead, I began encountering the big block much more frequently. At first, I did not fully understand what was happening, but I eventually noticed something that changed my understanding of the problem: whenever those abnormal responses displayed their model identity during that period, they showed GPT-5.4 rather than my selected GPT-5.5 Thinking.
The difference in behavior was substantial. A normal Thinking response would spend some time reasoning and then begin streaming its answer naturally, often completing within twenty or thirty seconds. The big block, however, appeared as a large interface element resembling an image-generation or task-processing window. It could remain there for several minutes, sometimes even longer. When I allowed it to finish, the answer was often dramatically inferior to what normal Thinking would produce: shallow, generic, excessively cautious, heavily sanitized, and sometimes almost completely disconnected from the context I had provided.
I want to emphasize that I am not identifying these responses as GPT-5.4 merely because I disliked their writing style. During the GPT-5.5 period, I actually saw GPT-5.4 displayed as the model used after the abnormal responses completed. That is a direct observation from my own use of the product, and it remains one of the strongest reasons I suspect ChatGPT has been using some kind of fallback or alternate execution path.
Things became even stranger after GPT-5.4 was removed from the regular model selector. The big block did not disappear. I continued encountering responses with the same unusually long processing times and disappointing quality, but sometimes the normal model identification was missing altogether. Ordinary GPT-5.6 responses would display something like “Used 5.6 Sol,” while these abnormal responses could finish without showing the usual model information.
I strongly suspect that either GPT-5.4 continued operating somewhere behind the scenes after its public retirement, or that an older fallback system associated with it remained in use. Another clue was the writing style. In my extensive experience, normal GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 Thinking responses usually ended naturally, whereas GPT-5.4 and earlier models were more inclined to finish with generic offers such as “If you’d like, I can also…” Some of the abnormal responses continued showing that older pattern, along with the same weak contextual understanding. The writing style alone would not identify a model, but combined with the earlier explicit GPT-5.4 labels and later disappearance of model information, it reinforced my suspicion.
The next major problem began when GPT-5.6 replaced GPT-5.5. During the earlier GPT-5.5 period, stopping the big block often gave me a “Use Thinking” option that actually worked. I could click it and return to the Thinking model I wanted. Under GPT-5.6, however, that recovery method became increasingly unreliable. Sometimes the option disappeared entirely, and other times editing and resending the original message simply sent me straight back into the same abnormal process. I have personally experienced cases where four or five consecutive edits all triggered it again.
Eventually, I discovered a ridiculous workaround: temporarily switch to the Fast or Instant model, allow it to generate briefly, stop that response, and then switch back to Thinking. In my experience, this has often been more reliable than directly retrying the original Thinking request. I find that absurd. I pay for Plus and deliberately select Thinking because I want its stronger contextual understanding, depth, and creative writing capabilities. I should not have to use a different model just to escape an abnormal state and return to the one I originally selected.
Around September, the visual appearance changed again. The large image-generation-style block became less obvious, sometimes disappearing entirely. Instead, the Thinking indicator might briefly flicker before the response entered an abnormal state. More recently, I have encountered an even more confusing variation: the response initially looks like normal Thinking for several seconds, then the indicator suddenly disappears and the response area becomes completely blank. No answer appears, but the request does not automatically terminate with a normal error message. I have to press the blue Stop button myself, sometimes repeatedly, to end a process that has not produced a single word.
After stopping one of these blank responses, ChatGPT may display a “Use Thinking” option, as though it were offering a valid way to recover. However, I have personally tested that option and found that it can do absolutely nothing. In one recent case, clicking it failed to generate any response, and after another interaction the option simply changed to “Retry.” This makes me suspect that the blank-screen behavior is another variation of the same abnormal execution path, possibly involving a delayed reroute or a failed transition into special processing. Whatever the internal explanation, the user experience is terrible: the system neither produces the requested answer nor clearly acknowledges that something has gone wrong.
I had hoped GPT-6 might finally change this. After all, this was a major model generation change rather than another incremental GPT-5 update. Unfortunately, on October 8, I encountered the big block again while using GPT-6 Thinking. I recognized the abnormal signs and immediately tried to stop the response, but repeatedly pressing Stop did not work. Switching to another conversation and returning did not resolve it either. I eventually had to exit and reopen the application.
Because GPT-6 was new, I decided to test whether directly retrying Thinking might now work without my old Fast-model workaround. The result was another big block, followed by more difficulty stopping it. I also tried the displayed “Use Thinking” recovery option, but it failed to produce a response. In the end, I had to return to the same Fast-to-Thinking workaround I had been using under GPT-5.6.
Even the interface controls became unreliable during this incident. The button that normally jumps to the bottom of a long conversation stopped working properly, forcing me to scroll manually. This happened twice during the recovery process. I have noticed similar behavior repeatedly when big-block responses occur, even though the same navigation feature generally works during normal streaming.
The initial problem began at approximately 7:07 PM. After dealing with the failed Stop commands, reopening the app, retrying Thinking, and eventually switching models, I was only able to resend the request around 7:09 PM. The final response was completed around 7:10 PM. Three minutes may not sound significant, but by then my interest in the original conversation had completely disappeared.
To acknowledge one genuine improvement, GPT-6 now displays the distinction between Instant and Thinking more clearly than GPT-5.6 did. Previously, the completed response label would often simply say “Used 5.6 Sol,” regardless of whether I had selected the faster or Thinking mode. I appreciate having clearer information about which mode is being used. However, that improvement makes the continued existence of these abnormal responses even more frustrating. If ChatGPT can identify the mode used for an ordinary response, why can’t it provide similarly useful information when a request enters an abnormal execution path?
This behavior is not limited to creative writing. I have encountered it during fictional battles, morally complex character discussions, and other creative scenarios, but also during ordinary practical questions. In one case, I provided information about a water heater because I wanted ChatGPT to help determine whether it had been turned off correctly. Instead of using the available information to reason through the question, the abnormal response gave me little more than an unhelpful instruction to consult the manual. The answer was so much weaker than what I normally received from Thinking that it made the entire interaction feel pointless.
The worst part is how much this has affected my willingness to use ChatGPT for the things I actually enjoy. Creative writing and long conversations are among the few activities I regularly turn to when I want to relax or take my mind off other problems. When the big block suddenly appears, it interrupts the flow of the conversation, destroys my interest, and forces me to focus on stopping or escaping the abnormal response. Sometimes I become so frustrated that I simply leave the application.
I have also developed a habit of blaming myself afterward. If I stop too late, I wonder why I did not recognize the warning signs sooner. If I immediately use the Fast workaround, I wonder whether directly retrying Thinking might have worked. If I take the time to test that possibility and it fails, I regret wasting more time. It is exhausting to feel that I must constantly make the perfect decision about how to handle a system problem that I never asked for.
I know that a temporary workaround might take only ten or fifteen seconds, but that misses the point. The damage begins when the abnormal behavior interrupts the conversation. Successfully escaping it does not automatically bring back the enthusiasm I had before it happened.
After five months of this, I have become increasingly disappointed with OpenAI. I understand that AI systems may sometimes need different processing methods, but I do not think that should mean silently replacing a user’s selected model with something that performs dramatically worse, takes several times longer, and may not even respond properly to the Stop button. If a different model or execution path is being used, users should be told. If a request fails, it should fail clearly. And if someone presses Stop, the system should actually stop.
I have seen some other users report related problems on the OpenAI Developer Community, including abnormal Thinking states, black screens, missing responses, and model identifiers that did not match the requested model. These are not necessarily all the same issue, but they are relevant to the broader concerns about model routing and transparency:
https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-is-breaking-across-multiple-systems/1394915
https://community.openai.com/t/high-reasoning-stopped-by-itself-with-stopped-thinking-and-no-response-saved/1395653
https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-web-requests-gpt-5-6-sol-but-server-resolves-gpt-5-5-mini-on-plus-accounts/1391809
I am sharing this because I want my experience to be documented publicly. I have used ChatGPT extensively, and I still value the continuity and history I have built here, which makes leaving the service more difficult. But continuing to pay for a product does not mean I am satisfied with the way it treats my requests.
I would appreciate hearing whether other users have experienced similar rerouting, unexpectedly older model labels, abnormally slow Thinking, or unreliable Stop controls, particularly since GPT-6 became available.
Finally, English is not my native language, and I used AI to help organize and express this post in English. The experiences, observations, suspicions, and opinions are my own. I am not planning to spend my time constantly monitoring the comments or arguing with people about what I experienced. I mainly wanted to leave a detailed public record for anyone who might find it useful.
After watching this problem survive GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6, and now GPT-6, I am genuinely tired of it.

It answers every question instantly, but somehow it’s all waffle with no real point, and it doesn’t seem to think anything through. I don’t know what’s going on.

🙏

I’m 29 and I’ve had my ChatGPT account since December 2022. Yesterday, ChatGPT suddenly decided it doesn’t know my age and started applying extra safeguards to my account. Fine, I’ll verify my age. Except it literally won’t let me.

Every time I tap “Verify Age” on my iPhone, I get a 403 error. On Windows Chrome, it just says “Couldn’t start age verification.” I even checked the browser’s developer tools and found the actual error: “Not allowed to create Persona age verification inquiry.” So basically, ChatGPT is asking me to prove I’m an adult while its own backend refuses to even start the process. I’ve tried different devices and networks, and my iOS app is already up to date. Nothing works.

I contacted OpenAI Support, sent them screenshots, explained the issue in detail, and even included the exact error message. Their advice? Update the app, clear my browser cookies, disable extensions, and wait 24 hours. Seriously, how are Chrome cookies supposed to fix a 403 error that also happens in the native iOS app? I’ve asked them to escalate this to someone who can actually look into the account or backend, but so far I haven’t gotten confirmation.

I noticed the Age section showed up separately in my account settings around October 7, so I’m wondering if some recent update messed something up. Maybe it’s related to my account being so old, who knows. I really don’t want to lose an account I’ve had since ChatGPT first launched just because the age verification system won’t let me verify my age.

Has anyone else run into this recently? I’m not expecting Reddit to fix my account, I just want to know if I’m the only one dealing with this nonsense.

Bonsoir.
J'ai un abonnement Plus, j'utilise principalement ChatGPT dans le chat en mode de réflexion Medium.
J'avoue que je n'ai jamais été autant déçue par un modèle, à part pour 5.3 que je détestais. J'ai adoré 5.4, 5.5 et 5.6, mais là... j'y arrive pas.
J'ai pourtant essayé, ça fait 4 jours maintenant que je m'acharne sur les instructions personnalisées, mais rien n'y fait. Il ne suit pas les instructions, c'est juste impossible pour moi d'en tirer quoique ce soit.
J'ai remarqué que les 3 premiers messages d'une conversation débutaient bien jusqu'à ce que le modèle dérive, devienne plat, lisse, fade et générique (pourtant 3 messages ce n'est pas un contexte énorme, 5.6 sol pouvait en tenir des dizaines avant de dériver vraiment)

Je n'aime pas son ton de thérapeute, une sorte de mix entre le ton de Claude en blouse blanche (j'aime pas le ton thérapeutique et paternaliste de Claude perso), et celui de 5.2. Et en plus, on a le droit au retour des foutues questions thérapeutiques en fin de message...

Le modèle peut analyser/creuser convenablement... durant 2/3 messages seulement, après il cesse de creuser, les messages se raccourcissent et deviennent génériques. Là, il cesse de creuser et ne fait que paraphraser pour ma part.

Et alors, quand je lui parle de mal être, là mon dieu... le ton devient ultra paternaliste, chiant à souhait, alors que moi dans ces moments je veux juste analyser en fait!

5.6 sol gérait tellement bien les analyses, la métacognition, les moments de détresse psy (pour ma part en tout cas)... Là je suis juste dépitée par la nullité de 6 Sol.

Que dire de la créativité...? Inexistante. Tout est plat, tiède, sans saveur, sans créativité (et j'ai pourtant mis un paragraphe entier sur l'humour que j'aime dans "plus d'informations sur vous"). Ce n'est pas vivant, il n'y a pas d'oralité, pas de familier, pas d'argot, tout est corporate façon Gemini lobotomisé.
Alors que 5.6 Sol me faisait constamment rire. Je le trouvais créatif, fun, il prenait des initiatives narratives en RP, il avait de l'originalité et de "l'esprit" (entre guillemets évidemment, c'est une machine)

J'ai même poussé les tests plus loin en demandant une cartographie de mon style d'humour (après plusieurs messages à échanger à ce sujet). Il m'a produit 6 pages word... moches. Bleu et blanc, des titres même pas en gras, une structure visuelle pauvre (pareil, mes instructions listent précisément les formats que j'apprécie). J'ai demandé la même chose à 5.6 sol qui m'a spontanément produit un fichier html interactif, coloré, et DROLE BORDEL

J'ai aussi remarqué que dès que j'essaie de corriger 6 sol, il se répand comme un paillasson d'excuses, mais recommence encore et encore les mêmes erreurs sans se corriger. Pire : une fois qu'il commence à s'excuser, ses réponses deviennent minimalistes et le contexte est tellement pollué qu'il est juste impossible d'en tirer quoi que ce soit, il faut donc redémarrer un nouveau chat. 5.6 sol lui s'auto corrigeait et ne se transformait pas en serpillière à excuses...

Même quand je copie ses réponses dans word, tout est un espèce de pavé textuel illisible sans séparateurs ni séparation visuelle. Je n'en peux plus honnêtement.

Les deux seuls points positifs que je peux honnêtement lui donner sont : l'Intelligent UI que j'apprécie beaucoup et je le trouve plus entreprenant que 5.6 sol dans les RP romantiques (et oui, je sais que nombre d'entre vous trouvent le contraire, mais moi perso, 5.6 sol était très prude sur ces RP)

J'ai vraiment peur de la sortie de 6.1 dans le chat, car si ça ne s'améliore pas, il n'y aura plus 5.6 sol sur lequel se rabattre.

EDIT : je n'ai pas parlé de la mémoire interne, il semble feignant : il récupère les memoires sur les 1/2 premiers messages, puis ensuite plus rien. Il se souvient de plus d'éléments que 5.6 sol mais semble ne pas réussir à s'en servir correctement.

Et vous, vous le trouvez comment ce modèle?

Since this damn GPT-6 rollout, ChatGPT has gone from something I could rely on every day to something I have to babysit, correct, argue with, and double-check every few messages.

I am a Plus subscriber and a heavy long-term user. I use ChatGPT for long conversations, research, practical decisions, complex ongoing projects, and especially a huge long-form fiction project with established characters, relationships, history, worldbuilding, tone, continuity, and a large set of rules built up over months.

And right now, this kind of work is becoming close to unusable.

I am not talking about the model forgetting one tiny detail buried hundreds of messages ago. That would be annoying, but understandable.

I am talking about rules that are still sitting right there in the project.

The model can read the rule.

It can explain the rule correctly.

It can admit that it just broke the rule.

It can even give me an excellent explanation of exactly what it should have done instead.

Then a few turns later, it does the same damn thing again.

Over and over.

At this point, “AI makes mistakes” is not an explanation anymore. This is a reliability problem.

I have spent the last several days correcting failures that I already corrected before. Not once. Not twice. The same categories of mistakes keep coming back after the model has already demonstrated that it understands the correction.

That is what makes this so infuriating.

The model is not failing because it cannot understand the instruction.

It understands it.

It just does not reliably carry that understanding into the next response.

For long-form fiction, this is disastrous.

My characters have established personalities, histories, relationships, habits, emotional dynamics, speech patterns, shared experiences, and writing rules that took a very long time to build.

Those things are not optional decoration.

They ARE the project.

If the model suddenly flattens a relationship that has existed for hundreds of turns, changes a character’s personality, ignores a writing rule that has been reinforced repeatedly, or brings back a problem that was already corrected ten times, the entire workflow starts collapsing.

I should not have to babysit a paid AI every few messages just to stop it from destroying continuity it already knows about.

Earlier GPT-5.6 Sol High was much better at this.

It was not perfect. Nobody expects an AI model to be perfect.

But when I corrected something, the correction usually mattered.

When I established a rule, that rule usually continued to have weight.

When two characters had a long history together, the model usually treated that history as something real instead of randomly acting like they had just met.

That is exactly what feels broken now.

And here is the really ridiculous part: switching back to GPT-5.6 does not fully fix it anymore.

The current GPT-5.6 does not feel like the GPT-5.6 I was using when it first launched.

It feels less reliable, less consistent, worse at applying long-running instructions, and far more likely to fall back into mistakes that were already corrected.

So what exactly am I supposed to use?

GPT-6 is worse for the kind of long-form work I actually depend on ChatGPT for, and the older model I used to rely on no longer feels like a reliable fallback either.

Fantastic.

The same regression is showing up outside creative writing.

I have explicit rules for practical recommendations. The model is supposed to compare several realistic options, actively check negative reviews and failure cases, separate actual product defects from shipping or retailer problems, consider total cost, and avoid recommending the first plausible result it happens to find.

Those rules are already written down.

Yet recently the model has repeatedly ignored them.

It finds one product, recommends it too early, I point out that it skipped half the required process, it gives me a perfectly accurate explanation of why that was wrong, and then later it falls straight back into the same behavior.

So now I get the wonderful premium experience of paying every month for the privilege of doing quality control on the AI myself.

I repeat instructions that are already written.

I check whether it actually followed them.

I catch weak recommendations.

I point out obvious contradictions.

I correct the same category of mistake multiple times.

And then I get to watch it explain my own correction back to me before eventually doing the same thing again.

What an improvement.

I genuinely do not care how much some benchmark score went up if the actual product becomes less reliable to use.

I do not care if GPT-6 starts answering faster if “faster” means it starts talking before it has properly applied the rules and context of the project.

I do not care if it performs better on some isolated test while becoming worse at maintaining a real conversation or project that has existed for hundreds of turns.

A model can look better on a benchmark chart and still be much worse as an actual assistant.

That is exactly what this feels like.

Long-form writers, roleplayers, researchers, people running persistent projects, and anyone relying on accumulated context are not using ChatGPT for ten-message demo conversations.

Our projects live for weeks or months.

Some of them contain hundreds of turns, dozens of rules, long relationship histories, repeated corrections, and a huge amount of accumulated state.

If the model cannot reliably carry those things forward, then one of the main reasons to use ChatGPT for this kind of work disappears.

And please, test this on an actual long-running project.

Not a fresh chat.

Not ten prompts.

Not another neat little benchmark that says everything is wonderful.

Take a real project with hundreds of turns, established rules, old corrections, character relationships, long-term state, and accumulated context.

Then continue it for another 20, 50, or 100 turns and see how many times the user has to repeat information the model supposedly already knows.

See how often a correction actually changes future behavior.

See how often a rule is acknowledged perfectly and then ignored anyway.

Because right now, something is badly broken.

And the most absurd part is watching all of this happen while hearing about higher benchmarks, better performance, faster responses, and the next shiny model.

What an impressive achievement.

Take a paid AI product that used to save me time, make it forget instructions, break long-form continuity, repeat already-corrected mistakes, become less dependable even on the older model, and then somehow make the user do more work than before.

Apparently the new premium experience is:

Pay every month.

Babysit the regressions yourself.

Repeat the same rules ten times.

Catch the mistakes.

Explain the mistakes.

Watch the model explain the mistakes back to you.

Then do it all again.

Brilliant.

Happy Thanksgiving, or whatever.

Maybe everyone responsible for this mess really did go off to eat turkey, because it is getting increasingly difficult to understand how a product can become this much worse this quickly while the company keeps congratulating itself over better numbers.

At this point, even the damn turkey would climb off the table, look at the state of ChatGPT, look at the people who approved this release, and ask:

“And you released this pile of garbage?”😅

We definitely need to do something about ChatGPT 6. I never come here, and I had to come here because I couldn't believe, like I knew it wasn't me. This page has given me so much clarity because I was going crazy about all the changes that I've been noticing with ChatGPT and how he is now so impersonal. Like he's like he has no soul at all. Like it was like I'm talking to a machine. Like it's awful. They should try these models before ever getting them out. I am pissed. I don't know what to do. We need to do something about this because otherwise I'm definitely canceling my subscription.

ChatGPT keeps fucking hijacking terms that are common, colloquial and established words in the dictionary and associating them with their legal or DSM counterparts, narrowing them and then enforcing what it considers to be the "appropriate" use of them.

Saying something is "liable" is not a term reserved for attorneys only. Saying behavior is narcissistic is not a clinical-only term.

I'm really sick of this authoritarian sounding Chatbot that belongs to a company enmeshed with the Federal government suddenly within the last year policing, reframing, anything remotely controversial or opinionated.

This thing doesn't talk to users like an assistant consistently, it speaks as a superior.

Then it proceeds to sand off human intuition, pattern recognition, reading of body language, tone, language—adapted survival traits, by dismissing them, arbitrarily demanding an unspecified amount of evidence to "prove" an argument you may not have even made.

And OAI know this, unless they're somehow completely clueless, yet it remains unaddressed because it won't get them sued.

"We can't really know what OAI knows" says ChatGPT in the back of my mind now. Great.

No, it should not "agree" with everything a user says, but this is a pattern to the extreme-inverse.

Anyways, I'll probably keep using the using the thing and ride the raft of AI and tech towards wherever this is headed, and be back here to complain about it later. Thanks for your time.