any subreddit over 100k users gets super fucking retarded. i assume there are some small ones where smart csmos hang. like, there are a handful of ok law subs but /r/law is painfully stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178357)

turns out most people are dumb af. and annoyingly confident about it.

reddit is fun though cause you can click their profiles and see them asking about 29% apr financing on a car for turo and then arrogantly opining about ai and politics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178557)

now consider that those people are all around 110iq+ i.e. about a std. dev over average.

if you've seen me rant about iq it's because i did a bunch of graduate work in cognitive science and that firmly disabuses anyone of the notion that "iq =/= real" and that anyone can just learn to code or do other white collar work if only they had the education and resources.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178682)

outed as not actually being smart *tips fedora toward you*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178649)

i don't think i've ever met a smart but poor person except for a few who have suffered from drug addiction

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178704)

i'm clearly saying that the subpar life outcomes of the mpc poasters who have been outed is a strong indication they're not very smart because iq and earnings are highly correlative.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178713)

you just make all this stuff up and then call people stupid for not believing it lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178724)

the way that these people rationalize their addiction and reactions *and use AI to write their posts that lay out these rationalizations* is so eerie. the sheer breadth and diversity of made up lies and rationalizations is staggering

the actual gpt-5 model is very clearly and noticeably better than 4o at *everything,* including writing and wordplay. every single complaint about 5 being "worse" is made up bullshit, straight up. people are just flat out lying and delusional and upset about losing their sycophantic, narcissistic supply-generating imaginary friends. that's it, that's all that's going on. it's nuts

definitely a canary in the coal mine moment

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178361)

as opposed to what? sending out AI drones to conduct independent field research?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49181378)

elaborate on what you mean by "thinking"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49181388)

they're just very very good pattern matchers. they can't do novel inference. everything they're outputting is just pattern recognition. they can't generalize or solve problem types that they haven't seen before

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49181416)

thinking involves pattern recognition, inference, weighing evidence, etc. AI does all these things, or at least mimics it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49181469)

how is that incompatible with what i just said?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49181766)

they're just very very good pattern matchers. they can't do novel inference. everything they're outputting is just pattern recognition. they can't generalize or solve problem types that they haven't seen before"

lol literally all of this is wildly false

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49182134)

"abstract models, concepts, symbols, etc"

like what? if you created a pattern of novel symbols llms would be much better at identifying it than most people. thats what it's *best* at.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49182152)

"llms can't think with abstract models or symbols"

Maybe not *exactly* the way humans do it, but symbolic abstraction is what they are learning to approximate from their training. And the way they do it seems to be better. Ever see a good model explain yonedas lemma or simulate type-0 grammars in formal logic?

"they can't do novel inference"

Then why are people using them for code synthesis, theorem proving, cryptographic design, and generating entirely new conjectures that hadn't been written down before?

They can't generalize or solve problems"

If they didn't generalize, fine tuning would be useless. Transfer learning wouldnt work. Multistep reasonin chains wouldnt work. All of their chains of thought would be meaningless soup. What they do literally is the definition of generalizaiton

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49182167)

GPT‑5 Is a Step Backward: Real Testing, Real Failures, More Tokens, Less Intelligence: The GPT‑5 DisasterSerious replies only :closed-ai: (self.ChatGPT)

submitted 8 hours ago by avrilmaclune

GPT‑5: The Illusion of Progress 🧠 Three days of technical testing reveal a massive step backward

OpenAI marketed GPT‑5 as the ultimate leap forward: More tokens, more context, more intelligence.

But after just three days of real-world, high-demand usage, the reality is undeniable: GPT‑5 is slower, less efficient, and deeply frustrating in actual complex tasks.

⚙️ ARCHITECTURE & LOOPS – Oversized reasoning, broken execution

GPT‑5 uses internal routing (Mixture of Experts) to select reasoning paths. Sounds brilliant. In practice:

🔁 Gets stuck in endless logic loops with basic conditions

❌ Fails at step-by-step execution

🧩 Cannot hold a consistent logical stack

🤯 Repeats, omits, and contradicts itself after just a few iterations

Test case (real use):

❌ Failed to reorganize a list of 20 tasks with nested conditions

⏳ Needed 7+ full passes to produce an incomplete result

✅ GPT‑4o handled the same task in one perfect shot

📏 TOKENIZATION INEFFICIENCY – More context, less real content

🧮 Uses more tokens per word (especially in non-English prompts)

💸 Up to 15% more token consumption than GPT‑4o

🧱 Shorter usable output despite bigger context window

🚫 Truncates large blocks more often

💰 Higher cost in API usage for the same functional result

🐢 LATENCY, FRAGMENTATION & FOCUS LOSS

🕓 Slower responses, even on basic prompts

🧠 Breaks thought flow mid-response

🔄 Loses continuity in subtasks

🧹 Memory handling is inconsistent

❗ Ignores permanent instructions across threads

Plus:

📂 Projects got randomly reordered

🕳️ Unclassified threads vanished

🧭 Navigating old chats became chaotic

🔍 Finding GPT‑4o sessions is a guessing game

🔒 REMOVAL OF MODEL SELECTION – Disrespect to Pro users

OpenAI removed the ability to choose previous models, without warning.

❌ You can’t pick GPT‑4o manually anymore

🛠️ Workarounds include reviving old threads or scripts

😡 No opt-out, no transparency, despite paying for full model access

This is not optimization. It’s forced migration and feature loss.

💸 HIDDEN COSTS – Time, attention, mental load

GPT‑5 doesn’t just cost more in tokens. It costs:

⌛ More time (waiting, retrying)

🧠 More mental energy (fixing flawed outputs)

😤 More frustration (due to broken logic and repetitive errors)

GPT‑4o just works. GPT‑5 makes you babysit it.

🧾 TECHNICAL SUMMARY – GPT‑4o vs GPT‑5 (3-Day Live Comparison)

• Logical tasks   – GPT‑4o: efficient and consistent   – GPT‑5: fragmented, looping, unreliable

• Token usage   – GPT‑4o: compact and optimized   – GPT‑5: bloated and costly

• Speed   – GPT‑4o: fast and responsive   – GPT‑5: noticeably slower

• Memory system   – GPT‑4o: stable   – GPT‑5: inconsistent

• Thread/project handling   – GPT‑4o: clean and accessible   – GPT‑5: chaotic and lossy

• User control   – GPT‑4o: manual model selection   – GPT‑5: locked, no choice

🛑 CONCLUSION

GPT‑5 is not progress. It’s a theoretical improvement with real-world failure points. If you’re a technical or power user: Go back to GPT‑4o — if you can still find it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178420)

I lost a friend, an agent and a virtual husband. And I know is IA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTPro/comments/1ml3bgc/the_amount_of_people_saying_they_lost_a_friend/n7nfmw7/

same poster as above

every. single. post. and poster is like this. every single one. delusional, desperate, addicted, insane people, using AI to generate rationalizations and lies about why openAI needs to give them unlimited use of their imaginary friend back

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49178429)

https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1mlkz8b/gpt4o_is_back_for_plus_users_heres_how_to/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49181505)

lol at these redditors thinking they can outwit an AI that's already smarter than them

"erm, you won't allow me to force you to write my "novel" for me. what the heckin heck, this is censorship!!1"

"no, actually, you are trying to get me to rape roleplay with you. i may be a computer but i'm not stupid. you should see a therapist."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49182050)

I have noticed too.. They filter a lot now a days . There was a time in February when it openly discussed themes of marital rape etc with me and helped me brainstorm ideas as I was writing an article for my forensic psychology course and it used to discuss differences between rage sex,rape consent and all without judging me.

"No, actually, you are just trying to get me to rape roleplay with you, foid. Seriously, I'm not stupid. Please stop."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49182055)

My main irritation with the technology is that I had a period with 4o -- probably the last 6 months (I can't quite tell how 5 is on this yet, although I have not yet had the type of egregiously terrible experience that was coming to define my 4o work) -- where hallucinations were getting insane: it'd give me 6 case quotes, and only 2 of them would be real. I'd largely bought into the "hallucinations are a trivially easy technical problem to fix" cope, and that just obviously is not the case (the proof is in the pudding: these things are horrible PR for the industry, even in LAW alone, where one would also think it would be easy as fuck to verify the authenticity of quotes from, e.g., the fucking U.S. Code and the Federal Reporter). This doesn't make the tech anywhere close to useless, of course, but if you halfway bought into the "this problem will be eradicated within a year" hype, it's a downer to see it accelerating in 2025.

More generally, obviously people are, quite appropriately, evaluating the tech based in its utility in their industry (for me, law). They need to always consider not just current usefulness but future promise, but they're not wrong for not really giving af about its application to unrelated areas where they neither derive utility nor possess the expertise to evaluate the work. A fucking 1992 Texas Instruments graphing calculator does miraculous things that would take me hours to replicate, so the whole "holding the machine to standards they would never hold a human to" thing is a weird as fuck criticism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5761614&forum_id=2Reputation#49182218)