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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Ahead of US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) meeting today on the sidelines of the APEC summit in South Korea, an op-ed published in Time magazine last week maliciously called President William Lai (賴清德) a “reckless leader,” stirring skepticism in Taiwan about the US and fueling unease over the Trump-Xi talks. In line with his frequent criticism of the democratically elected ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which has stood up to China’s hostile military maneuvers and rejected Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework — Lyle Goldstein, Asia engagement director at the US think tank Defense Priorities, called
A large majority of Taiwanese favor strengthening national defense and oppose unification with China, according to the results of a survey by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). In the poll, 81.8 percent of respondents disagreed with Beijing’s claim that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China,” MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) told a news conference on Thursday last week, adding that about 75 percent supported the creation of a “T-Dome” air defense system. President William Lai (賴清德) referred to such a system in his Double Ten National Day address, saying it would integrate air defenses into a
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS