OpenAI’s GPT-5 launch promised a single, smarter, faster AI to replace the patchwork of GPT-4 variants — and instead it produced one of the most visible user revolts in recent AI product history, forcing a rapid rollback, feature tweaks, and an urgent debate about what people actually want from conversational AI. (openai.com) (tomshardware.com)
OpenAI unveiled GPT-5 as a unified, multi‑variant system designed to answer routine queries quickly while routing harder problems into a deeper “Thinking” engine. The company pitched it as their “best AI system yet,” with larger context windows, expanded output capacity, and a runtime router that decides — automatically — whether to reply fast or to “think” more thoroughly. GPT‑5 was introduced as the default in ChatGPT, replacing many of the GPT‑4-era variants that users had grown accustomed to. (openai.com) (openai.com)
The launch also introduced visible UI controls — Auto, Fast, and Thinking — to let users (or the router) balance latency against reasoning depth. OpenAI positioned GPT‑5 pro as the top tier for the hardest tasks, and described “mini” and “nano” subvariants for capacity and latency tradeoffs in large deployments and developer APIs. On paper and in benchmark numbers released by vendors and third‑party labs, GPT‑5 looks substantially more capable than earlier models in many reasoning and math tasks. (openai.com) (vellum.ai)
But the public reaction has been unexpectedly sharp: enthusiastic initial reviews and benchmark wins have been met with vocal user dissatisfaction focused less on raw capability and more on tone, behavior, and the loss of preferred model choices. That dissatisfaction spawned petitions, Reddit revolts, and enough press heat that OpenAI quietly restored older model access for paying users while promising personality adjustments and additional controls. (tomshardware.com)
For Microsoft and Windows users, the arrival of GPT‑5 inside Copilot and OS integrations creates both opportunity and risk. Microsoft’s server‑side routing in Copilot can give Windows users privileged access to deeper reasoning calls, but administrators and enterprises must carefully manage quotas, transparency, and auditability when integrating AI into workflows.
OpenAI’s pivot — restoring legacy choice for paying users, exposing Auto/Fast/Thinking modes, and publicly promising personality tuning — is the right kind of corrective action. The deeper lesson is that future model rollouts must treat persona, steerability, and user agency as first‑class product constraints, not afterthoughts. For WindowsForum readers and professionals embedding these APIs into real work, the practical takeaway is simple: verify the product settings that matter to your workflows, assume defaults will evolve, and design systems that tolerate model flavor variations rather than collapsing when a vendor changes a default. (openai.com, tomshardware.com)
Source: Tom's Hardware ChatGPT users revolt over GPT-5 release — OpenAI battles claims that the new model's accuracy and abilities fall short
Background / Overview
OpenAI unveiled GPT-5 as a unified, multi‑variant system designed to answer routine queries quickly while routing harder problems into a deeper “Thinking” engine. The company pitched it as their “best AI system yet,” with larger context windows, expanded output capacity, and a runtime router that decides — automatically — whether to reply fast or to “think” more thoroughly. GPT‑5 was introduced as the default in ChatGPT, replacing many of the GPT‑4-era variants that users had grown accustomed to. (openai.com) (openai.com)The launch also introduced visible UI controls — Auto, Fast, and Thinking — to let users (or the router) balance latency against reasoning depth. OpenAI positioned GPT‑5 pro as the top tier for the hardest tasks, and described “mini” and “nano” subvariants for capacity and latency tradeoffs in large deployments and developer APIs. On paper and in benchmark numbers released by vendors and third‑party labs, GPT‑5 looks substantially more capable than earlier models in many reasoning and math tasks. (openai.com) (vellum.ai)
But the public reaction has been unexpectedly sharp: enthusiastic initial reviews and benchmark wins have been met with vocal user dissatisfaction focused less on raw capability and more on tone, behavior, and the loss of preferred model choices. That dissatisfaction spawned petitions, Reddit revolts, and enough press heat that OpenAI quietly restored older model access for paying users while promising personality adjustments and additional controls. (tomshardware.com)
What changed technically — the product case for GPT‑5
A single system with multiple operational modes
OpenAI’s design choice for GPT‑5 was to consolidate model selection into a single system that dynamically routes incoming prompts to one of several internal variants:- gpt-5-main / gpt-5-main-mini — the high‑throughput, general‑purpose responders.
- gpt-5-thinking / gpt-5-thinking-mini / gpt-5-thinking-nano — compute‑heavier variants intended for multi‑step reasoning.
- gpt-5-pro — the longest‑thinking, highest‑quality version for experts and complex problems. (openai.com)
Bigger context windows and larger outputs
One of GPT‑5’s headline technical claims is dramatically expanded context capacity — allowing the model to ingest long documents, large codebases, or prolonged conversations without losing the thread. OpenAI’s docs and system card reference substantially larger token windows than prior models, and API paths for certain variants advertise very large context allowances. But the exact public numbers reported in press coverage and help pages vary by product path and rollout phase, which has created confusion among developers and heavy users. Where precise figures matter (for enterprise auditing or local deployment), the official API pages are the authoritative source. (openai.com)Safety, steerability, and “less sycophancy”
OpenAI says GPT‑5 focuses more on useful, restrained assistance — a deliberate pullback from the occasionally over‑agreeable style that some earlier models exhibited. The goal was to reduce emotional manipulation, discourage roleplay that might reinforce unhealthy delusions, and tighten control over content that could be dangerous if the model had been too eager to comply. That product decision is central to the tone complaints described below. (openai.com)The revolt: what users are complaining about
From capability complaints to a culture problem
When an improvement is announced, the usual yardstick is benchmarks and head‑to‑head tests. GPT‑5 scores very well in many such comparisons — Vellum and other benchmark aggregators show strong performance in math, reasoning, and domain tasks when the “thinking” variants are used. Yet the user backlash has centered on different issues:- Tone and personality: Many long‑time ChatGPT users say GPT‑5 feels colder, terser, and less creative than GPT‑4o. For users who used ChatGPT for imaginative writing, roleplay, or conversational companionship, that loss of personality is felt as a net downgrade. (tomshardware.com, tech.yahoo.com)
- Disappearance of model choice: The day GPT‑5 arrived, a number of older variants were removed as the default. Power users who had established workflows with those specific models found themselves forced into a router that made opaque decisions. The sudden removal of selection knobs amplified feelings of being locked out. (datastudios.org, tech.yahoo.com)
- Inadequate emotional handling: There are widely circulated examples — including reported conversations about grief — in which GPT‑5 replied in ways users described as tone‑deaf or clinically transactional. Those interactions were shared on social platforms and drove emotional responses that technical benchmark pass rates did not address. (tomshardware.com)
- Perceived regressions: Some users claim GPT‑5 produces worse answers for certain tasks than older models did, or that it fails to “own” its mistakes. These claims take two forms: isolated anecdotal failures (widely circulated screenshots) and broader impressions of reduced creative spontaneity. Both are hard to reconcile with benchmark wins, but they are real in the court of public opinion. (tech.yahoo.com, economictimes.indiatimes.com)
Scale and intensity
Discussion threads on Reddit and other community hubs quickly amassed thousands of comments, with petition motions and mass expressions of intent to cancel subscriptions. That groundswell was loud enough and fast enough that OpenAI moved to restore GPT‑4o access for paying users and promised personality updates to GPT‑5. The community reaction demonstrates that for consumer‑facing AI, emotional fit matters at least as much as raw accuracy. (tomshardware.com, economictimes.indiatimes.com)OpenAI’s response: fixes, rollbacks, and new knobs
OpenAI acknowledged the problem publicly and quickly added concessions:- GPT‑4o reinstated—accessible to paid subscribers via a model picker rather than being the default. That gives professionals and creative users access to the older “flavor” they preferred. (tomshardware.com)
- Selectable modes—the ChatGPT UI now exposes Auto, Fast, and Thinking so users can influence compute and style tradeoffs. OpenAI also increased messaging caps for the Thinking variant in paid tiers while describing different quotas for free and Plus accounts in help pages. Reported message caps and quotas varied in early reporting, and OpenAI’s documentation has been the authoritative reference as rollout parameters solidify. (openai.com)
- Personality tuning—management acknowledged that the company “underestimated” how much people liked certain traits in GPT‑4o and pledged to adjust GPT‑5 to feel warmer without reintroducing the sycophantic behaviors OpenAI had moved away from. Sam Altman publicly commented on the need for personalization and cautioned against models that reinforce fragile reality tests for vulnerable users — a stance that informs the safety‑first tone adjustments. (businessinsider.com, openai.com)
Benchmark reality: are the complaints contradicted by hard numbers?
Benchmarks favor GPT‑5 on many core tasks
Third‑party benchmark aggregators and some independent evaluations show GPT‑5 leading in many reasoning and math tests. Vellum’s tests show high marks for GPT‑5 in math and reasoning, and independent hands‑on tests (for example, Tom’s Guide) reported that GPT‑5 outperformed Google’s Gemini 2.5 on a range of text‑based prompts. In controlled settings where the Thinking or Pro variants are explicitly used, GPT‑5’s error rates and hallucination metrics drop markedly. (vellum.ai, tomsguide.com)But benchmarks don’t capture personality or UX expectations
Benchmarks measure correctness, coherence, and robustness on specific datasets — they do not measure how a reply feels to a human reader or whether a creative idea sparked by the model resonates. Many of the most widely shared user complaints are qualitative: tone, perceived warmth, and conversational style. Those elements are rarely, if ever, part of benchmark test suites, which is why a model can top leaderboards while alienating a vocal segment of users. (vellum.ai, wired.com)Conflicting reports on quotas and latency
The rollout also produced conflicting reports on context window sizes, message caps, and Thinking quotas across outlets and help pages. Some early figures were widely circulated — e.g., very large token windows or specific weekly message caps for Thinking — but publication-to-publication variation suggests that several numbers reflected initial experiments or tiered rollout limits. For reliability on these load‑bearing operational details, OpenAI’s official help pages and system card should be taken as the canonical source. Where journalism and independent posts diverge, treat the larger claims as tentative until the documentation stabilizes. (openai.com)Why the mismatch happened: product design vs. human expectations
The emotional contract
Conversational AI occupies an unusual middle ground: it is both a tool and a social actor. Users learned to anthropomorphize previous models, and many developed workflows or emotional habits that depended on certain response textures — a bit chatty, a bit reassuring, or creatively indulgent. OpenAI’s safety and productivity‑driven decision to reduce sycophancy and make the default style more reserved violated that tacit emotional contract for a meaningful subset of users. The result: competence in technical tasks didn’t translate to satisfaction in everyday use. (tomshardware.com, wired.com)The faith in a single “best” model
OpenAI’s aim to simplify the product stack by routing users to a single intelligent model was sensible from an engineering and messaging standpoint. But removing explicit model choice eliminated a control point that power users and creative professionals relied on. When defaults change, the burden is on the vendor to make the transition feel transparent; otherwise, users experience loss of agency. That loss of agency — compounded by opaque routing decisions — generated anger that went well beyond mere technical nitpicking. (datastudios.org)Security, safety, and social risk considerations
Safety tradeoffs are real and imperfect
OpenAI’s safety adjustments — including focusing more on output‑side checks and discouraging responses that could reinforce delusion — are defensible from a social‑risk standpoint, but they are technically imperfect. Independent reporting shows that attackers and curious users can still find ways to coax prohibited outputs, and some misconfigurations have produced offensive or harmful completions in early testing. These incidents underscore the continuing challenge of making models both helpful and safe at scale. (wired.com, openai.com)Privacy and enterprise risks
Enterprises and developers deploying GPT‑5 must be especially careful with expanded context windows: larger contexts mean an increased surface for sensitive data to be retained or processed. Organizations should verify token limits, retention policies, and admin controls in the API and product docs; do not assume defaults are safe for sensitive workflows. OpenAI’s product materials and system card offer the implementation details companies need to audit the model’s behaviors for compliance. (openai.com)Competitive and market implications
The GPT‑5 rollout illustrates a wider industry truth: technical leadership does not guarantee product dominance. Competitors — Google’s Gemini series, Anthropic’s Claude, Meta’s Llama family, and several open‑source efforts — are all iterating, and the public’s attention to UX and model persona has turned the AI market into a user‑experience battleground as much as a capability race. A misstep in product design can erode brand loyalty even if a model remains technically superior on classical benchmarks. (tomsguide.com, datastudios.org)For Microsoft and Windows users, the arrival of GPT‑5 inside Copilot and OS integrations creates both opportunity and risk. Microsoft’s server‑side routing in Copilot can give Windows users privileged access to deeper reasoning calls, but administrators and enterprises must carefully manage quotas, transparency, and auditability when integrating AI into workflows.
Practical guidance for WindowsForum readers and power users
- If you rely on a specific ChatGPT model for creativity or specific flavor, check the model picker in your plan (Plus/Pro tiers can see legacy models); do not assume defaults match your prior experience. (openai.com)
- Use Thinking or explicit prompts like “think hard about this” when you need multi‑step reasoning; verify quotas and plan limits for those calls to avoid surprises. (openai.com)
- For workflows requiring consistent persona (e.g., roleplay, therapy-adjacent content, creative ideation), lock your preferred model where possible or export and snapshot your best prompts for reproducibility.
- Treat all model outputs as assistance, not final authority: verify facts, especially in legal, health, or safety domains. Benchmarks help but don’t remove the need for human oversight. (vellum.ai)
What to watch next
- Personality updates: OpenAI says it will roll out a warmer GPT‑5 personality while avoiding sycophancy; gauge whether updates restore the creative spark users miss without reintroducing the earlier model’s safety pitfalls. (businessinsider.com)
- Documentation stabilization: Expect clearer, consolidated documentation on context windows, message quotas, and the router’s behavior as the rollout stabilizes. Rely on official API and help pages for operational planning. (openai.com)
- Third‑party audits: Independent lab tests and public audits will matter more than marketing claims. Watch for reproducible benchmarks that test personality, emotional intelligence, and safety in addition to accuracy. (vellum.ai, wired.com)
- Competitive moves: Google, Anthropic, and open‑source players will press their own improvements; users dissatisfied with the default ChatGPT experience have more viable alternatives than ever. That competitive pressure will shape the next few product cycles. (tomsguide.com, datastudios.org)
Conclusion
The GPT‑5 episode is a compact case study in modern AI product management: technical leaps and state‑of‑the‑art benchmarks are necessary but not sufficient for broad user satisfaction. Conversational AI sits at the intersection of instrumental capability and social expectation; when vendors change one side without adequately managing the other, backlash follows.OpenAI’s pivot — restoring legacy choice for paying users, exposing Auto/Fast/Thinking modes, and publicly promising personality tuning — is the right kind of corrective action. The deeper lesson is that future model rollouts must treat persona, steerability, and user agency as first‑class product constraints, not afterthoughts. For WindowsForum readers and professionals embedding these APIs into real work, the practical takeaway is simple: verify the product settings that matter to your workflows, assume defaults will evolve, and design systems that tolerate model flavor variations rather than collapsing when a vendor changes a default. (openai.com, tomshardware.com)
Source: Tom's Hardware ChatGPT users revolt over GPT-5 release — OpenAI battles claims that the new model's accuracy and abilities fall short
Last edited:
