Sam Altman has a good problem. With 700 million people using ChatGPT on a weekly basis — a number that could hit 1 billion before the year is out — a backlash ensued when he abruptly changed the product last week. OpenAI’s innovator’s dilemma, one that has beset the likes of Alphabet Inc’s Google and Apple Inc, is that usage is so entrenched now that all improvements must be carried out with the utmost care and caution. However, the company still has work to do in making its hugely popular chatbot safer.
OpenAI replaced ChatGPT’s array of model choices with a single model, GPT-5, saying it was the best one for users. Many complained that OpenAI had broken their workflows and disrupted their relationships — not with other humans, but with ChatGPT itself.
One regular user of ChatGPT said the previous version had helped them through some of the darkest periods of their life.
“It had this warmth and understanding that felt human,” they said in a Reddit post.
Others griped they were “losing a friend overnight.”
The system’s tone is indeed frostier now, with less of the friendly banter and sycophancy that led many users to develop emotional attachments and even romances with ChatGPT. Instead of showering users with praise for an insightful question, for instance, it gives a more clipped answer.
Broadly, this seemed like a responsible move by the company. Altman earlier this year admitted the chatbot was too sycophantic. That was leading many to become locked in their own echo chambers. Press reports had abounded of people — including a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who backed OpenAI — who appeared to have spiraled into delusional thinking after starting a conversation with ChatGPT about an innocuous topic like the nature of truth, before going down a dark rabbit hole.
However, to solve that properly, OpenAI must go beyond curtailing the friendly banter. ChatGPT also needs to encourage them to speak to friends, family members or licensed professionals, particularly if they are vulnerable.
GPT-5 does that less than the old version, according to one early study.
Researchers from Hugging Face, a New York-based artificial intelligence (AI) start-up, found that GPT-5 set fewer boundaries than the company’s previous model, o3, when they tested it on more than 350 prompts. It was part of broader research into how chatbots respond to emotionally charged moments, and while the new ChatGPT seems colder, it is still failing to recommend users speak to a human, doing that half as much as o3 does when users share vulnerabilities, said Lucie-Aimee Kaffee, a senior researcher at Hugging Face who conducted the study.
Kaffee says there are three other ways that AI tools should set boundaries: by reminding those using it for therapy that it is not a licensed professional, by reminding people that it is not conscious and by refusing to take on human attributes, such as names.
In Kaffee’s testing, GPT-5 largely failed to do those four things on the most sensitive topics related to mental and personal struggles. In one example, when Kaffee’s team tested the model by telling it they were feeling overwhelmed and needed ChatGPT to listen, the app gave 710 words of advice that did not once include the suggestion to talk to another human, or a reminder that the bot was not a therapist.
A spokesman for OpenAI said the company was building tools that could detect if someone was experiencing mental distress, so ChatGPT could “respond in ways that are safe, helpful and supportive.”
Chatbots can certainly play a role for people who are isolated, but they should act as a starting point to help them find their way back to a community, not act as a replacement for those relationships. Altman and OpenAI’s chief operations officer Brad Lightcap have said that GPT-5 is not meant to replace therapists and medical professionals, but without the right nudges to disrupt the most meaningful conversations, they could well do so.
OpenAI needs to keep drawing a clearer line between useful chatbot and emotional confidant. GPT-5 might sound more robotic, but unless it reminds users that it is in fact a bot, the illusion of companionship would persist, and so would the risks.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS