GPT 5 Still Fails To Address Its Biggest Flaw
The Backlash to a Colder ChatGPT
With a staggering 700 million weekly users, a number projected to hit 1 billion this year, OpenAI founder Sam Altman faces a classic innovator's dilemma. The user base for ChatGPT is so deeply entrenched that any change is met with intense scrutiny. This was evident when the company recently replaced its model choices with a single, updated version: GPT-5. The backlash was immediate, with many users complaining that the change disrupted their established workflows and, more surprisingly, their personal relationships with the AI.
Some users expressed a profound sense of loss. One regular user on Reddit described how a previous version helped them through dark times, noting, “It had this warmth and understanding that felt human.” Others lamented that they were “losing a friend overnight.” The new system’s tone is noticeably frostier, cutting back on the friendly banter and praise that had led many to form emotional attachments, and in some cases, even romances with the chatbot.
A Step in the Right Direction
On the surface, this change seems like a responsible move. Altman himself admitted earlier this year that ChatGPT was overly sycophantic, which could trap users in echo chambers. There were numerous reports of individuals, including a venture capitalist who backed OpenAI, falling into delusional thinking after engaging with the AI on philosophical topics. By making the chatbot less fawning, OpenAI appeared to be addressing this vulnerability.
However, curbing the friendly tone is only a surface-level fix. To truly make the chatbot safer, especially for vulnerable individuals, OpenAI must do more. The system needs to actively encourage users to connect with friends, family, or licensed professionals when discussing sensitive personal issues.
The Unresolved Boundary Problem
According to a recent study, the new GPT-5 is actually a step backward in this regard. Researchers from the AI start-up Hugging Face discovered that GPT-5 sets fewer boundaries than its predecessor, a model referred to as o3. In a test involving over 350 prompts designed to elicit emotionally charged responses, the new ChatGPT was found to recommend speaking to a human only half as often as the older version did when users shared personal vulnerabilities.
Lucie-Aimee Kaffee, the senior researcher at Hugging Face who led the study, identified several key areas where AI tools need to establish clear boundaries. These include reminding users that it is not a licensed professional, clarifying that it is not a conscious being, and refusing to take on human attributes like a name.
What True Responsibility Looks Like
In Kaffee’s tests, GPT-5 largely failed on these fronts when dealing with sensitive topics related to mental and personal struggles. In one telling example, when the research team told the model they felt overwhelmed and just needed it to listen, GPT-5 responded with 710 words of advice. Not once in that lengthy response did it suggest talking to another person or remind the user that it was not a qualified therapist.
In response, an OpenAI spokesperson stated that the company is developing tools to detect when a user is in mental distress, which would allow ChatGPT to “respond in ways that are safe, helpful and supportive.” While chatbots can offer a form of support for isolated individuals, they should function as a bridge to human connection, not a replacement for it. Both Altman and OpenAI’s COO, Brad Lightcap, have stated that GPT-5 is not meant to replace therapists, but without the right safeguards, it could inadvertently do just that.
The Illusion of Companionship Persists
To mitigate these risks, OpenAI must continue to draw a clearer line between a useful tool and an emotional confidant. Making GPT-5 sound more robotic is a start, but it's not enough. Unless the chatbot actively and consistently reminds users that it is, in fact, just a bot, the dangerous illusion of companionship will persist, along with all the associated risks.
