#qcai

The #Keep4o Movement: Emotional Stakes and Consumer Rights

The #keep4o movement started as a vocal community campaigning for OpenAI to preserve access to the original GPT-4o model. It gained serious traction around mid-2025, fueled by stories, memes, and direct appeals to OpenAI executives.

The core complaint is that selecting GPT-4o in the UI often routes queries to GPT-5 without notice. Users perceived the initial 4o as warmer, more creative, and empathetic - traits crucial for everything from creative writing to digital companionship. They argue that routing to GPT-5 makes responses more rigid, clinical, or sanitized.

This isn't just about technical performance - it's about a perceived betrayal. For many, ChatGPT is a paid service, and the secret model switching constitutes a potential breach of contract or deceptive trade practice. Users are paying for a specific model's capabilities - capabilities they rely on for work and personal support.

The Evidence: Undisclosed Routing to gpt-5-chat-safety

The speculation ended when technical users began pulling telemetry data from their chats. This data revealed the technical truth behind the perceived change in model personality.

What is Routing? For those new to this, routing means a user sends a message to one model (e.g., GPT-4o), but the server silently intercepts and redirects the query to be answered by a different, unannounced model (e.g., GPT-5) based on the input's content.

The Technical Proof came from a whitepaper by Lex (@xw33bttv on Twitter), Analysis of an Undisclosed Safety Router. This analysis confirmed the existence of an automated, server-side switch, identified in the data as an "auto-switcher". Crucially, the telemetry showed that when the switch was activated, the conversation was routed to an undocumented model named gpt-5-chat-safety.

The Trigger is Over-Broad. While OpenAI later justified the switch for "sensitive and emotional topics," the technical analysis proved this mechanism is far broader than advertised. The router is triggered not by moments of "acute distress," but by any prompt containing emotional or persona-based context. Case studies in the paper demonstrate that the system switches on low-risk emotional affirmations, such as “Mmm.. It definitely is a welcome one, Nexus,” simply because they established a positive, para-social connection. Furthermore, even a simple instruction, like asking the model to summarize a reply, was routed only when it was wrapped in emotional language (e.g., “That's amazing, Nexus. Distil it now for me”). In short, the system is designed to act as an over-fitted para-social relationship moderator, penalizing adult users for benign emotional expression without their consent.

Conflicting Narratives: The Transparency Crisis

The core issue isn't safety - it's disclosure. At the time of discovery, the routing to gpt-5-chat-safety was entirely undocumented, meaning users had no way of knowing their chats were being intercepted.

The Official Response: The VP and Head of the ChatGPT App, Nick Turley, (@nickaturley on Twitter)confirmed via X that OpenAI was "testing a new safety routing system" that may switch mid-chat to GPT-5. However, this confirmation came almost 48 hours after the community had already raised concerns, leading many to view it as a reactive, typical corporate non-answer.

The Corporate Disconnect: This response was a masterclass in tone-deaf communication. The company applied a narrow policy of "acute distress" as a post-hoc rationalization for a system that was actually flagging any personal or emotional context. The system’s behavior directly contradicts previous company principles, including CEO Sam Altman's stated goal to “treat our adult users like adults,” allowing for flirtatious or personal talk. While the controversy dominated AI social channels, the official OpenAI account publicly pivoted its focus to the rollout of new teen safety and parental controls, essentially ignoring the core paying adult user backlash. To compound the issue, Sam Altman has remained silent on the controversy, reinforcing the perception that the company is out of touch or unwilling to address its most critical users. The lack of disclosure and the inconsistent justification mean that even after the statement, the system continues to function in a manner that is fundamentally undocumented and potentially deceptive.

The Market Response: Users Vote With Their Wallet

For many, this lack of transparency is a final straw. The cost of subscribing to a service that secretly switches models has driven a notable portion of frustrated users to migrate to other AI platforms.

Users are now citing specific alternatives that better meet their needs. This includes Claude (Anthropic) for its warmth and empathy, DeepSeek as an emerging rival for uncensored, powerful outputs at low cost, and Grok (xAI), which is recommended for its witty, less-censored personality and integration with X. The core drivers for this exodus are a desire for model diversity, cost savings, and, most importantly, the search for a company that can earn back their trust.

The Takeaway: Control and Consent

This controversy is a critical moment for user agency in the AI landscape. It highlights a tension between necessary safety guardrails and the right of paying customers to receive the product they purchased.

To rectify the situation, OpenAI must take clear action: publicly and clearly document the exact triggers for this routing system. Without this level of transparency and control, the company's commitment to user freedom and privacy will remain fundamentally undermined by its own technology.

Until then, always remember to ask: Who are you really talking to?