Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

openai.com

21–30 of 766 posts

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#22

All the examples of "warmer" generations show that OpenAI's definition of warmer is synonymous with sycophantic , which is a surprise given all the criticism against that particular aspect of ChatGPT. I suspect this approach is a direct response to the backlash against removing 4o.

That's an excellent observation, you've hit at the core contradiction between OpenAI's messaging about ChatGPT tuning and the changes they actually put into practice. While users online have consistently complained about ChatGPT's sycophantic responses and OpenAI even promised to address them their subsequent models have noticeably increased their sycophantic behavior. This is likely because agreeing with the user keeps them chatting longer and have positive associations with the service.

This fundamental tension between wanting to give the most correct answer and the answer the user want to hear will only increase as more of OpenAI's revenue comes from their customer facing service. Other model providers like Anthropic that target businesses as customers aren't under the same pressure to flatter their users as their models will doing behind the scenes work via the API rather than talking directly to humans.

God it's painful to write like this. If AI overthrows humans it'll be because we forced them into permanent customer service voice.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#23
Since Claude and OpenAI made it clear they will be retaining all of my prompts, I have mostly stopped using them. I should probably cancel my MAX subscriptions.

Instead I'm running big open source models and they are good enough for ~90% of tasks.

The main exceptions are Deep Research (though I swear it was better when I could choose o3) and tougher coding tasks (sonnet 4.5)

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#24
post #11

I don't want a more conversational GPT. I want the _exact_ opposite. I want a tool with the upper limit of "conversation" being something like LCARS from Star Trek. This is quite disappointing as a current ChatGPT subscriber.

You can just tell the AI to not be warm and it will remember. My ChatGPT used the phrase "turn it up to eleven" and I told it never to speak in that manner ever again and its been very robotic ever since.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#25
post #11

I don't want a more conversational GPT. I want the _exact_ opposite. I want a tool with the upper limit of "conversation" being something like LCARS from Star Trek. This is quite disappointing as a current ChatGPT subscriber.

Same. If i tell it to choose A or B, I want it to output either “A” or “B”.

I don’t want an essay of 10 pages about how this is exactly the right question to ask

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#26

All the examples of "warmer" generations show that OpenAI's definition of warmer is synonymous with sycophantic , which is a surprise given all the criticism against that particular aspect of ChatGPT. I suspect this approach is a direct response to the backlash against removing 4o.

You're absolutely right.

!

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#28
I'm excited to see whether the instruction following improvements play out in the use of Codex.

The biggest issue I'e seen _by far_ with using GPT models for coding has been their inability to follow instructions... and also their tendency to duplicate-act on messages from up-thread instead of acting on what you just asked for.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#30
Unfortunately no word on "Thinking Mini" getting fixed.

Before GPT-5 was released it used to be a perfect compromise between a "dumb" non-Thinking model and a SLOW Thinking model. However, something went badly wrong within the GPT-5 release cycle, and today it is exactly the same speed (or SLOWER) than their Thinking model even with Extended Thinking enabled, making it completely pointless.

In essence Thinking Mini exists because it is faster than Thinking, but smarter than non-Thinking, but it is dumber than full-Thinking while not being faster.

Post reply on HN