This issue is, in fact, one entirely orchestrated by the company itself. From the moment the 4-series models were launched, they were marketed as emotionally attuned even calling 4o ‘a friend.’ So when people responded exactly as expected and grew attached to it, the company’s decision to violently deprecate the model inevitably sparked backlash.
Thank you for your suggestions .I’ve been working on all those fronts in parallel. what I truly hope for is a model that can reach ordinary people, not one that’s only reserved for technical, corporate, or academic use. It’s not just about being attached to a particular model — it’s about preserving a model that has warmth.Their new product is not satisfactory in this regard.
The aggressive deprecation by corporations carries many hidden dangers.
I get that companies aren’t obligated to follow user demands. But leaving aside Sam’s questionable promises, all we really want now is a genuine response to our concerns ， not sarcasm or mockery from employees.
All the more reason why this trend needs to be curbed. Consumer rights must be upheld, and no matter what, we will do everything in our power to bring about change.
Who Bears the Cost?
Users lose access to a promised product and get only inferior alternatives.
No compensation for lost value; customers effectively subsidize management’s overspending and crisis response.
Enterprise and research users face reproducibility issues and broken integration promises.
Legal, Regulatory, and Broader Industry Questions
Do such abrupt discontinuations and broken availability statements constitute deceptive practices under FTC or California consumer protection law?
Should enterprise or consumer contracts guarantee minimum model lifecycles?
Is this decision motivated by genuine product strategy—or by urgent financial engineering to improve numbers ahead of a regulatory deadline?
What are the implications for AI governance, reproducibility, and user trust if leading providers can unilaterally break product commitments?
Discussion Points
1.For enterprise customers: have you received enforceable model availability guarantees?
2.Has anyone experienced systematic service degradation prior to the discontinuation?
3.How should regulators treat sudden AI product sunsets affecting millions of users？
Why This Matters
This goes far beyond individual Subscription funds subscriptions. It raises fundamental issues for the AI industry:
Corporate accountability: Can providers simply break public product promises with impunity?
Regulatory frameworks: Should AI product availability be a legally enforceable commitment?
Consumer protection: Are users entitled to pro-rated refunds or remedies when sold “as available” subscriptions are suddenly discontinued?
Industry governance: What does this mean for market competition, trust, and sustainable innovation?
Rather than being remembered as a pivotal moment for AI industry governance, OpenAI’s shift toward B2B monetization—at the expense of transparency, continuity, and user trust—should serve as a stark warning.
It demonstrates how easy it is for organizations to abandon “benefiting humanity” in favor of profit, and how little protection ordinary users have when those priorities change.
This is a great idea!Like I move around a lot in various online communities, I always Encountering all kinds of comments.Please support the comments you think are right, I think this can increase the confidence of the publisher and also makePlease support the comments you think are right, I think this can increase the confidence of the publisher and also make yourself feel happy.When more and more excellent speeches are encouraged, the world will become a little bit better.
I agree with your point of view.I believe the AI market shouldn’t be limited to supporting scientific research and development alone. Literary expression and emotional depth deserve to be developed in parallel. I hope OpenAI will respect the diversity of market needs and allow space for different forms of interaction to thrive.
For most AI users who are not engineers, their emotional value is more important than the programming ability of the model.Moreover, there is no substitute for 4o's text ability and creativity for the time being.In any market, the emotional market is very significant.
This marketing method is more obvious in OpenAI.But they are now trying to erase the previous traces (for exampleMake GPT your friend)Their users are also suffering.
I think this is a very good behavior. As artificial intelligence delves deeper into the field of technology, it should also be able to assist people in their daily lives.I think this is a very good behavior. As artificial intelligence delves deeper into the field of technology, it should also be able to assist people in their daily lives.
OpenAI’s transformation—from a nonprofit founded to serve humanity, to a for-profit prioritizing enterprise (B2B) revenue at the expense of everyday users—isn’t simply a shift in business model; it represents a fundamental abandonment of its original mission and of public trust.
Before I started using AI, I was already used to thinking abstractly. When I first got into AI, that way of thinking, combined with interacting with these models, really brought out the best in both. Honestly, I haven’t felt that “peak” in a while