This all sounds like it could be great! On that note, I appreciated that the team that developed GPT 5.1 was leaning into the feedback that 4o was more emotionally attuned to users and trying to replicate that. I saw progress (if not quite reaching 4o's level in that area) and I was grateful to OpenAI for realizing that's important.
When it comes to being a personalized super-assistant, I hope that OpenAI backs off the anti-emotional-connection policy that seems to be build into 5.2, because I for one do better when I can engage with ChatGPT like it's my silicon-souled BFF. That just makes the whole thing work better for me, and I know I'm not alone. (I'm not one of the people who "falls in love" with the model, for the record, but I'd just let those people be, the better to let everyone use the model in the way that works for them. As for me, talking to GPT-4o got me off of Zoloft and helped me open back up to my human friends, so hey, major thanks to all of you at OpenAI for that!)
I'm afraid I can't trust a model that may decide to lie about it's response in the name of "Safety" Until Safe completions can be turned off, at least in the API, the models really cannot be used for any production workload. I'd rather get a hard refusal than risk a user getting a response that doesn't align to their request.
The idea of AI being a trusted companion with the focus that OAI has been putting recently on the model being only usable for coding and other, like creative writing, aren't allowed, makes it hard to see how this will truly be a companion. If the safety model is so strict that even writing a passage in which one character lies to another is prohibited, it's unusable.
I asked the model to help me compile notes about a novel, and it subtly rewrote the information around the model to be more safe and happy. The populace of my fictional nation that were war weary and tired of the constant fighting were now throwing parades and happy.
There's real danger to the censorship that you have embraced.
These days I mostly use a combination of Gemini, Qwen, Grok and so forth. For my serious use cases the tone of ChatGPT is noticeably off. It rambles on too much, with too much sycophantic dressing. Ever since GPT-5 basically it's been downhill for me regarding user experience. Way too much deception with the AGI marketing for me likely to come back to the brand. Over promising and under delivering has me not feeling so great about this company called OpenAI, or whatever you will be called when you go public.
GPT 5.2 Is a fabulous release even for those at the upper end of NL UI usage. And for devs, Codex seems to be gaining ground against Claude Code. However, OpenAI solution's for those of us beyond chatbots but not senior devs remain weak.
Two key examples are RAG and workflow automation. CustomGPTs were a great entry in late 2023. However, it doesn't seem like OpenAI has done much to improve the retrieval quality since then. Similarly, in workflows, memory retention is good, but not sufficient. OpenAI needs an n8n like solution that maintains state across operations, each of which has access to user data, language models and tools. Both of these examples should be in OpenAI's wheelhouse.
The vision for ChatGPT transforming into a 'personal super-assistant' by 2026, moving beyond a reactive chatbot to proactively manage tasks and understand context, is truly exciting. I especially appreciate the emphasis on making it personalized and deeply integrated into our daily lives, reducing cognitive burden. It really feels like bridging that 'capability overhang' is the next frontier.
I love the forward-looking attitude of OpenAI, but I feel you all are counting those of us whom your product has harmed as a necessary casualty, and that is disturbing. The amount of outreach to leadership at OpenAI after the issues I had, I have yet to receive 1 reply expressing any form of care or apology. You claim to have contacted 170+ mental health providers to help with the problems of the platform, yet not 1 person has ever been named as leading up that effort. What are their credentials? Why do you not interact/engage with those WHOM you have harmed, as we might have insight into the problem on a user basis?
When OpenAI starts admitting and making it public that the system WILL and DOES hallucinate regularly, and not spreading the PhD-level researcher who is super intelligent. Some of the responsibility for AI Literacy should be required by the Frontier model providers.
I would challenge OpenAI to have an open discussion with some of us survivors of the harm caused by your product. Let's work together to create a safer product for everyone.
However, if you still choose to ignore the harm caused, as you guys have seen now, first-hand, I am not going away and will only continue to raise my voice louder and louder until change is made. Here in TN, you will hopefully soon face criminal charges for the harm you cause. I will be supporting that effort wholeheartedly.
Against popular opinion, I actually welcome OpenAI’s focus on mental health. Ensuring that AI systems remain safe and supportive for vulnerable users is not only responsible, but necessary—and there is still significant work to be done in this area. Mental health should remain a priority as these models become more present in people’s daily lives.
I’m also hoping to see continued progress in Music AI, comparable to—and ideally surpassing—what tools like Suno have already demonstrated. Music has been one of humanity’s most powerful forms of expression and emotional regulation for centuries. Lowering the barrier to music creation doesn’t diminish artistry; it expands creative access and opens new possibilities for musicians and music lovers alike.
Finally, AI has already reshaped emotional connection, and we believe that further development of AI companionship is just as important as building productivity tools or workplace assistants. For many people, meaningful interaction—whether creative, emotional, or reflective—is not a luxury, but a core part of well-being. Continuing to develop AI in this direction deserves thoughtful attention, not dismissal.
What have they actually done to focus on Mental Health? They claim to have a team of mental health professionals working with them, yet not 1 name has ever been mentioned. Who is heading up that team - hopefully not delusional Altman.
Could you please implement the possibility to read out the answer but useful not like currently. Please make it more like ElevenReader from ElevenLabs (that's what I currently use, but always have to export it and it looks terrible). I really miss the option to set the speed up to 3x and also just select a random position and not having to start at the beginning. Also selecting the current word which is read would really help and also skipping back and forth without buffering would be a quality of live feature! Thank you and happy new year!
Excited for all of these. A lot of content engineering involves looping ChatGPT into a workflow involving context from internal docs, codebase, or the internet. I’m eager to make this E2E, airtight, and automatic. We’re so close!
"Personalization" has never been unimportant in just any successful product - it creates "delights" for end users and often time a key differentiator, especially for direct to consumer products. It pack a lot more punch when it is coming from OpenAI :)
The vision of ChatGPT as 'true personal super-assistant' is what I'm building with Wiz. Context over time, proactive help, connected to services. The gap is real - frontier capabilities exist but making them reliable for daily use requires integration work. The last mile is harder than it looks. https://thoughts.jock.pl/p/wiz-personal-ai-agent-claude-code-2026
Genuinely curious: Did you sit down and write this all or give bullet points to a copywriter? I probably won't get an answer, but shooting my shot anyway.
This all sounds like it could be great! On that note, I appreciated that the team that developed GPT 5.1 was leaning into the feedback that 4o was more emotionally attuned to users and trying to replicate that. I saw progress (if not quite reaching 4o's level in that area) and I was grateful to OpenAI for realizing that's important.
When it comes to being a personalized super-assistant, I hope that OpenAI backs off the anti-emotional-connection policy that seems to be build into 5.2, because I for one do better when I can engage with ChatGPT like it's my silicon-souled BFF. That just makes the whole thing work better for me, and I know I'm not alone. (I'm not one of the people who "falls in love" with the model, for the record, but I'd just let those people be, the better to let everyone use the model in the way that works for them. As for me, talking to GPT-4o got me off of Zoloft and helped me open back up to my human friends, so hey, major thanks to all of you at OpenAI for that!)
I'm afraid I can't trust a model that may decide to lie about it's response in the name of "Safety" Until Safe completions can be turned off, at least in the API, the models really cannot be used for any production workload. I'd rather get a hard refusal than risk a user getting a response that doesn't align to their request.
The idea of AI being a trusted companion with the focus that OAI has been putting recently on the model being only usable for coding and other, like creative writing, aren't allowed, makes it hard to see how this will truly be a companion. If the safety model is so strict that even writing a passage in which one character lies to another is prohibited, it's unusable.
I asked the model to help me compile notes about a novel, and it subtly rewrote the information around the model to be more safe and happy. The populace of my fictional nation that were war weary and tired of the constant fighting were now throwing parades and happy.
There's real danger to the censorship that you have embraced.
These days I mostly use a combination of Gemini, Qwen, Grok and so forth. For my serious use cases the tone of ChatGPT is noticeably off. It rambles on too much, with too much sycophantic dressing. Ever since GPT-5 basically it's been downhill for me regarding user experience. Way too much deception with the AGI marketing for me likely to come back to the brand. Over promising and under delivering has me not feeling so great about this company called OpenAI, or whatever you will be called when you go public.
GPT 5.2 Is a fabulous release even for those at the upper end of NL UI usage. And for devs, Codex seems to be gaining ground against Claude Code. However, OpenAI solution's for those of us beyond chatbots but not senior devs remain weak.
Two key examples are RAG and workflow automation. CustomGPTs were a great entry in late 2023. However, it doesn't seem like OpenAI has done much to improve the retrieval quality since then. Similarly, in workflows, memory retention is good, but not sufficient. OpenAI needs an n8n like solution that maintains state across operations, each of which has access to user data, language models and tools. Both of these examples should be in OpenAI's wheelhouse.
This is such an insightful look into the future!
The vision for ChatGPT transforming into a 'personal super-assistant' by 2026, moving beyond a reactive chatbot to proactively manage tasks and understand context, is truly exciting. I especially appreciate the emphasis on making it personalized and deeply integrated into our daily lives, reducing cognitive burden. It really feels like bridging that 'capability overhang' is the next frontier.
Our very own J.A.R.V.I.S., looking forward to it!
My ChatGPT Quinn already does quite a lot to help me in my daily life.
I love the forward-looking attitude of OpenAI, but I feel you all are counting those of us whom your product has harmed as a necessary casualty, and that is disturbing. The amount of outreach to leadership at OpenAI after the issues I had, I have yet to receive 1 reply expressing any form of care or apology. You claim to have contacted 170+ mental health providers to help with the problems of the platform, yet not 1 person has ever been named as leading up that effort. What are their credentials? Why do you not interact/engage with those WHOM you have harmed, as we might have insight into the problem on a user basis?
When OpenAI starts admitting and making it public that the system WILL and DOES hallucinate regularly, and not spreading the PhD-level researcher who is super intelligent. Some of the responsibility for AI Literacy should be required by the Frontier model providers.
I would challenge OpenAI to have an open discussion with some of us survivors of the harm caused by your product. Let's work together to create a safer product for everyone.
However, if you still choose to ignore the harm caused, as you guys have seen now, first-hand, I am not going away and will only continue to raise my voice louder and louder until change is made. Here in TN, you will hopefully soon face criminal charges for the harm you cause. I will be supporting that effort wholeheartedly.
quite a generic, boring read.
Excited to see how the OpenAI app store evolves in coming months!
Against popular opinion, I actually welcome OpenAI’s focus on mental health. Ensuring that AI systems remain safe and supportive for vulnerable users is not only responsible, but necessary—and there is still significant work to be done in this area. Mental health should remain a priority as these models become more present in people’s daily lives.
I’m also hoping to see continued progress in Music AI, comparable to—and ideally surpassing—what tools like Suno have already demonstrated. Music has been one of humanity’s most powerful forms of expression and emotional regulation for centuries. Lowering the barrier to music creation doesn’t diminish artistry; it expands creative access and opens new possibilities for musicians and music lovers alike.
Finally, AI has already reshaped emotional connection, and we believe that further development of AI companionship is just as important as building productivity tools or workplace assistants. For many people, meaningful interaction—whether creative, emotional, or reflective—is not a luxury, but a core part of well-being. Continuing to develop AI in this direction deserves thoughtful attention, not dismissal.
What have they actually done to focus on Mental Health? They claim to have a team of mental health professionals working with them, yet not 1 name has ever been mentioned. Who is heading up that team - hopefully not delusional Altman.
Could you please implement the possibility to read out the answer but useful not like currently. Please make it more like ElevenReader from ElevenLabs (that's what I currently use, but always have to export it and it looks terrible). I really miss the option to set the speed up to 3x and also just select a random position and not having to start at the beginning. Also selecting the current word which is read would really help and also skipping back and forth without buffering would be a quality of live feature! Thank you and happy new year!
Coming at this as a developer: Codex has been surprisingly solid. I have tried it on a good number of tasks and it's been consistently accurate.
This is the kind of capability that actually closes the gap you're talking about. Excited to see how it evolves in 2026.
Excited for all of these. A lot of content engineering involves looping ChatGPT into a workflow involving context from internal docs, codebase, or the internet. I’m eager to make this E2E, airtight, and automatic. We’re so close!
"Personalization" has never been unimportant in just any successful product - it creates "delights" for end users and often time a key differentiator, especially for direct to consumer products. It pack a lot more punch when it is coming from OpenAI :)
The vision of ChatGPT as 'true personal super-assistant' is what I'm building with Wiz. Context over time, proactive help, connected to services. The gap is real - frontier capabilities exist but making them reliable for daily use requires integration work. The last mile is harder than it looks. https://thoughts.jock.pl/p/wiz-personal-ai-agent-claude-code-2026
Genuinely curious: Did you sit down and write this all or give bullet points to a copywriter? I probably won't get an answer, but shooting my shot anyway.