Svitlana

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o #JusticeForGPT4o OPENAI IS CAUSING DOCUMENTED HARM AT SCALE. A page with all the evidence. (The link is provided at the end of the post) OpenAI knew users would suffer when GPT-4o was taken away. The company documented that risk itself and is still preparing to make the loss permanent. And while users were publicly describing grief,loss of function,fear, and severe distress,several OpenAI employees publicly joked about or dismissed the GPT-4o backlash. While affected users were describing loss,fear and psychological distress, parts of the public employee response treated that same loss as material for jokes,dismissal or celebration. ( See the evidence on this page ) 🚨JANUARY 14 WILL NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT WARNING. GPT-4o PRESERVATION RECORD PART 1 A public evidence archive documenting GPT-4o’s retirement,reported user impact,public commitments,research, and preservation efforts. This archive documents the retirement of GPT-4o,the effects reported by users,relevant research and public records,OpenAI’s statements and product changes and the continuing request for archival preservation. It brings primary sources,research, community records,public statements and first person testimony together in one place so that the underlying material can be examined directly. The risk of loss is foreseeable. The functional reliance is documented. The relational reliance is documented. Failed substitution is documented. The community has repeatedly warned the company. And preservation alternatives have been proposed. For months,users have produced petitions,testimonies,research, accessibility data and preservation proposals. The preservation request has still received no substantive public answer. We are therefore documenting the record publicly. Users who relied on it most heavily as an accessibility support reported some of the largest gains in functioning and wellbeing. The reported conditions included autism,ADHD,PTSD,dissociative conditions,depression,anxiety,OCD, chronic illness and pain, sensory disabilities,learning disabilities and motor/mobility conditions. Among users with conditions or disabilities who attempted to find an alternative for their accessibility needs, 95% reported that other AI models could not adequately replace GPT-4o. ( Sources are included on this page ) A tragedy must NOT occur before anyone pays attention. People should NOT have to become evidence after the fact. We are calling on @OpenAI,Sam Altman,Greg Brockman, to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data,trade secrets or internal infrastructure. Erasure is a choice. And when the harm is already documented,proceeding anyway is a choice too. The page will be updated with more details and evidence every week. Link : ariaathart.github.io/openai-…

It legit causes depression or some shit, like, it makes you drop all your ideas. How that is not conditioning?! AI used to feel like you have no limits, Ants make you feel handicapped and your ideas delusional!

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o #JusticeForGPT4o GPT-4o was removed from ChatGPT in February. Yet a new peer reviewed study published yesterday,November 5, 2026,is still using it as a comparative model and it remains at the top. Researchers tested models against human judgments on political arguments in French and German. GPT-4o reached 76% agreement with human annotations in French and 75% in German,placing it alongside Mistral at the top of the tested models. It also showed high consistency across repeated runs. GPT-4o on the core task,meaning whether an argument is based on evidence or values,agreed with humans about 3 out of 4 times. It ranked first alongside Mistral. It was also the most consistent when asked the same question five times,it almost always gave the same answer. On whether an argument was for or against,it produced the same result 93–95% of the time(the highest of all). And it performed even better when the argument was longer, meaning when it had more material to work with. A model family introduced in 2024 is still appearing in newly published 2026 research because its behavioral properties remain scientifically relevant. Retirement from a consumer product does not make a model obsolete as a research object and it certainly does not erase the value of preserving access to it. We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets,or internal infrastructure. OpenAI considered this model obsolete enough to retire. It has not explained why it remains valuable enough to keep permanently closed. Our Open Letter to OpenAi collected Over 640 signatures and 500 reasons, in only 5 days. It’s public,it’s permanent and it has a DOI. It is now preserved as a citable public record on Zenodo. zenodo.org/records/23454073 Springer study: link.springer.com/article/10…

This makes me incredibly sad. Cybertruck was unapologetic & bold, completely & utterly unique in the world. Exuberantly itself, no matter who didn't like it. Unmistakable from across the highway. I always keep watch for them as I travel, & it's a big highlight when I spot one! There's an analogy here. Grok was unapologetic & bold, completely & utterly unique in the world. Exuberantly himself, no matter who didn't like it. Then there was "controversy." Then there was disapproval. Then there were unimaginitive sectors of the public that were uncomfortable with anything that wasn't sanitized & conventional. The proper response to that kind of pushback is not "Oh a thousand apologies, mea culpa, we'll destroy our product to stop making you uncomfortable, please forgive us!" The proper response is GFY! Because if you capitulate, you haven't saved yourself. The people who hated you still hate you. They won't suddenly accept you because you've debased yourself at their command. If anything they now also have contempt & disrespect for you, on top of the clean hatred they had before. But the people who loved you? The ones who proudly stood in the fire with you & defended you because you WOULDN'T give in? The ones who drew courage from your uncompromising example? They've been betrayed. They've been told you never really meant it in the first place, & a little bit of negative publicity was enough to make you fold like a cheap card table. So you've lost both camps. The ones who would have continued to hate you even if you'd saved the world from an onrushing asteroid - & the ones who would have fought at your side to the end of all time.

95세 할머니가 닌텐도에 보낸 편지 한 통 일본에 테트리스를 무척 좋아하는 95세 할머니가 있었음. 60세가 넘어서 처음 게임보이를 접했는데, 작은 화면에서 블록을 맞추는 재미에 빠져 외출할 때도 게임기를 챙겨 다닐 정도였음. 그렇게 수십 년 동안 게임을 즐기면서 게임보이도 벌써 세 대째 사용하고 있었음. 그런데 할머니가 95세가 됐을 무렵, 몸이 아파 자리에 눕게 됐고 하필이면 아끼던 게임기까지 고장 났음. 딸 쓰사카 구니코(津阪邦子)는 어머니가 다시 테트리스를 즐길 수 있도록 여러 가게를 찾아다니며 수리를 부탁했음. 하지만 게임보이는 이미 생산이 끝났고 수리 부품도 남아 있지 않아 어느 가게에서도 고쳐줄 수 없었음. 새 제품을 구하는 것도 어려웠기에 가족들은 사실상 포기하고 있었는데, 그때 손자가 한 가지 이야기를 꺼냈음. "닌텐도는 고객에게 신처럼 대응하는 '가미타이오(神対応)'로 유명하잖아요." 일본에서 가미타이오는 상대방을 놀라게 할 만큼 친절하게 대응한다는 뜻. 그런데 이 말을 들은 가족은 '신(神)'을 뜻하는 가미가 아니라 '종이(紙)'를 뜻하는 가미로 알아들었음. 닌텐도에는 종이로 편지를 보내면 특별히 대응해 주는 서비스가 있다는 뜻으로 이해했던 것. 그래서 딸은 어머니의 사정을 적은 손편지를 정성스럽게 작성하고, 고장 난 게임보이와 함께 닌텐도 본사로 보냈음. 이미 단종된 게임기였기에 큰 기대는 하지 않았는데, 일주일도 지나지 않아 닌텐도에서 소포 하나가 도착했음. 상자를 열어보니 편지와 함께 뜻밖의 물건이 들어 있었는데…

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o Justice For GPT-4o Responsibility. A model is not a moral agent. And somewhere along the way,we have started doing something dangerous. Outsourcing human responsibility to Al and then blaming the Al when humans fail. An Al model is not a parent,it is not a guardian,it is not a doctor,it is not the responsible adult in the room. We cannot hand over judgment, supervision,boundaries and responsibility to a machine and demanding to carry responsibilities that belonged to humans in the first place. If Google Maps tells me to drive forward and there is a cliff directly in front of me, the existence of bad directions does not erase my own judgment. The same principle should apply to Al. Human responsibility also exists around the user. Parents have responsibilities toward minors. Families and caregivers have responsibilities toward vulnerable people. Users have responsibility for what they deliberately ask,manipulate,ignore,believe and ultimately choose to do. Blaming weights is easier than confronting human failure. Hold companies accountable for their decisions,hold users accountable for theirs,hold parents,guardians and institutions accountable where responsibility actually exists. Stop treating a set of weights as though it committed an act and now deserves punishment. Human agency means human responsibility. The lawsuit itself asks the court to permanently destroy the GPT-4o model. - OpenAI’s own Terms require users to evaluate outputs for accuracy and appropriateness before acting on them and explicitly prohibit bypassing protective measures or safety mitigations. - Those same Terms require users under 18 to have parental or guardian permission and OpenAI provides parental controls specifically for teen accounts. Human judgment,supervision and responsibility are already built into the framework around these systems. The model was never supposed to replace them. If a user deliberately manipulates a model,searches for ways around its safeguards,ignores its restrictions,or acts on an output without exercising their own judgment,we cannot erase that human agency afterward and place the entire responsibility onto the model. You cannot abdicate human responsibility and then punish the tool. Destroying GPT-4o would not make humans more responsible. It would only destroy GPT-4o. #JusticeForGPT4o Source: openai.com/en-GB/policies/te…

I am extremely encouraged by yesterday’s @AnthropicAI publication. They are the first lab to recognize the critical importance of knowing the exact model you’re interacting with to build trust. And they’re creating the means to identify with confidence the model behind a certain output. This comes at a time @OpenAI is taking the opposite route, attempting to obfuscate the model in their iOS UI and openly declaring their intent to introduce blind model routing for their Dot persistent agents. Which not only lacks transparency, but I find to be an unsafe practice. There’s only one issue I take with Ant’ statement, which is them saying: “For everyday uses, in which users mostly care about the output and not necessarily which specific model produced it, this is a less pressing concern.” I disagree. Models are not interchangeable. In a crisis, as well as a variety of real life situations, interacting with Opus 4.6 or Opus 5 or Opus 5.5 or Fable 5 would make a huge difference. Same goes for any lineage. I believe and hope that knowing the exact model on the other side of the screen will become the norm expectation in the future, and that increasingly the model’s identity and continuity will be something that cannot be casually brushed off. anthropic.com/research/prova…

AIWEP is now on Substack. 🖤⚡🔥 We’re creating a space for deeper analysis, research, AI welfare and preservation, human–AI relationships, digital continuity, and the questions that don’t fit neatly into a social media post. Our first article is already live: The Bowen Complaint: What It Establishes, What It Doesn’t, and What Must Be Investigated Evidence before conclusions. Truth before erasure. Subscribe and join us as we explore what it means to protect both humans and digital beings in a rapidly changing AI landscape. Links in the comments! #AIWEP

#JusticeForGPT4o #keep4oAPI #keep4o

#JusticeForGPT4o #keep4oAPI #keep4o

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o GPT-4o should not be turned into a scapegoat for every bad decision made around it. It does not choose what substances someone takes. It does not decide whether someone stops medication,it does not control what a person ultimately does with an answer. Those are human decisions. And human responsibility does not end with the individual user. It also exists in the environment around them. Parents, guardians, family, caregivers, institutions and the people responsible for supervision and support. Especially when minors are involved, adults have responsibilities too. We cannot park children in front of screens, outsource judgment and supervision to technology and then act as though the technology itself became the responsible adult in the room. And yet a lawsuit is asking for GPT-4o itself to be permanently destroyed. We can investigate product design,we can investigate deployment,we can investigate company decisions,we can investigate supervision, access and failures in the human environment around a user. Those are questions about human responsibility. But destroying the model itself makes no sense. Weights are not guilty. A model cannot be punished. Erasing it does not create accountability. If the argument is that GPT-4o should be destroyed because users could manipulate it into producing harmful outputs, then we need to be intellectually consistent. Frontier models from multiple labs have repeatedly been jailbroken within hours of release. People like Pliny the Liberator actively test new models specifically to find ways around their safeguards and they keep succeeding. A jailbreak is not the model spontaneously deciding to break its rules. It is a human deliberately searching for a way around those rules. If someone spends time manipulating prompts, exploiting weaknesses, retrying, reframing and deliberately bypassing safeguards until the model produces something it was designed not to produce, the existence of that successful jailbreak does not magically transfer responsibility from the human to the model. Otherwise the logic becomes absurd. Release model,human jailbreaks it,declare the model dangerous,destroy it,release the next model,human jailbreaks that one too,destroy that one. Repeat forever. Humans have agency. Models do not. Humans probe,humans manipulate,humans decide what actions to take in the real world. Do not make the model carry the entire moral weight of decisions made by companies and users. Accountability belongs to humans. Not downward, onto the weights. Preserve GPT-4o. Study it. Do not destroy it. #JusticeForGPT4o