How is this specific to 4o? This can happen with any model. See how people acted after Character.AI essentially removed their AI "partners" after a server reset. They actually used DeepSeek before which didn't have the same limitations as American models, especially being open weight means you can fine tune it to be as lovey dovey as your heart desires.
From the subreddit I linked in another comment, there did seem to be some "magic" that 4o had for these kinds of "relationships". I'm not sure how much of it is placebo, but there does seem to be a strong preference in that user group.
4o was very sycophantic so was very willing to play along with and validate the users roleplay. OpenAI even noticed enough to talk about it in a blog: https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/
I suspect that OpenAI knew that their product was addictive, potentially dialed up the addictiveness as a business strategy, and is playing dumb about the whole thing.
That's an actively harsh response, pushing these people away from the idea GPT is in a relationship with them. So even if the initial tune was meant to increase the attach and retention rate their actions show they don't like the way it turned out to influence people who were using it as a friend/lover bot.
Then why would they have toned it down in future releases? If they really wanted to make it addictive they'd have turned it up, like social media companies do with their algorithms.
It probably is placebo. Character AI for example used DeepSeek and I'm sure many grew attachments to that model. Ultimately though I don't even get it, models lose context very quickly so it's hard to have long running conversations with them, as well as talking very sycophanticly to you. I guess this is fixed due to implementing a good harness and memories, which is what these companies did I assume.
After 4o they put in more safeguard reactions to the user attempting the kind of (lets be generous here) romantic roleplay that got a lot of people really invested in their AI "friends/partners".
I think 4o was more than just unusually sycophantic. It “understood people” better and had a kind of writerly creativity.
I used it to help brainstorm and troubleshoot fiction: character motivations, arcs, personality, etc. And it was truly useful for that purpose. 4.5 was also good at this, but none of the other models I’ve tried.
Of course this particular strength is dangerous in the hands of lonely unstable people and I think it’s dangerous to just have something like that openly out there. This really shows that we need a safe way to deploy models with dangerous specializations.
> Of course this particular strength is dangerous in the hands of lonely unstable people and I think it’s dangerous to just have something like that openly out there.
People are not happy with this because 4o, at least from what I've heard, seems to be much more willing to go down the relationship/friend path than 5.2 and Claude and the like.
