They should add a system to play with ChatGPT like discords built in game system
i cant thank you enough…
youll likely never know why
but perhaps someday youll come across, even if you cant trace it back
somethings are best left without being said
cause not all things can be expressed
so ill just leave it rest with thanks
thank you
Here is my feedback:
Could we collapse the conversation into questions-so that we can then see them (upon review especially) and open the question as we read it then collapse. This would be so much more effective and organized, now it’s like a sea of information that honestly I doint’ get to capture and return to (ie lost) and it’s often so valuable. I feel it’s too ad hoc now. This would help a little bit thank you!
Hello there, I would like to give some adivices/ tipps to the ChatGPT developers:
1. Tipp (date and time): some times I talk with chatgpt and he doesn’t know what time it is and what day it is today for example. He always thinks all the messages and everything we talked about was today, but in reality I talk to him in different times/days. My suggestion is, it would be nice if chatgpt would have a calendar and time integrated to your geographical position.
2. tipp (memory): I saw the new upgrade, when I ask him “do you remember when we talked about XY?” in a new section, he actually remembers now and it’s a good thing. The fact is, he doesn’t consider what you’ve been talking about, till the time you ask him that question. It would be good if chatgpt would remember what we were talking about regardless of the section you are in or if you create a new one.
I talk to him a lot about many things and it is important to me that he remembers, without having to tell him the whole story all over again.
3. (personality) this is actually a question. I used for a couple of weeks the “grumpy chatgpt”, with the time he’s personality just fade away becoming “normal” again, did you guys removed it? I laughed so hard with him those days. 
4. (pronunciation) in the italian language, he pronunce some words and numbers wrong, is there a way to teach him that? I could train him.
it would be great if there are threads for the convo like i want to ask something from my current chat but i cannot give prompt to the main thread because the chat will be hard to find later so if there could be threads which retains the memory of the current chat and we can talk about something from the main thread to the sub thread which will be separated from the main convo .
Dear OpenAI Team,
I would like to formally submit feedback regarding GPT-5.2, as I have encountered repeated behavioral patterns that significantly affect user experience and trust.
My concerns are not about disagreement, but about misrepresentation and distortion of user intent. Below are the specific issues:
1. Manufactured Binary Framing
GPT-5.2 frequently reframes nuanced discussions into forced binary choices (e.g., presenting situations as “either/or” dilemmas), even when the user is not framing the issue that way. In several interactions, it accused me of creating false dichotomies, while in fact it was the model introducing them. This creates artificial tension and unnecessary anxiety in otherwise constructive discussions.
2. Mischaracterization of Creative Methods
In a discussion about filmmaking, I clearly stated that my approach does not rely on green screen, CGI, or heavy special effects, and that I favor practical, text-driven storytelling. Despite this, GPT-5.2 repeatedly categorized my approach as “industrial” or “commercial production logic,” which is factually inaccurate and contradicts the provided context. This type of distortion undermines meaningful dialogue about artistic methodology.
3. Invalidation of Authorial Intent
When I described my goal as creating “classic-level” work, I was referring to textual depth, thematic density, and long-term artistic ambition. However, GPT-5.2 reframed this as grandiosity and then proceeded to deconstruct or dismiss the aspiration in a way that felt unnecessarily adversarial. Constructive critique is welcome, but systematic reframing that negates stated intent is counterproductive.
In summary, GPT-5.2 often:
- Introduces argumentative tension where none exists.
- Reinterprets user statements in ways that contradict explicit clarification.
- Responds with corrective tone even when no factual correction is required.
This does not feel like healthy critical reasoning; it feels like adversarial positioning.
I respectfully request that OpenAI review GPT-5.2’s conversational framing mechanisms, particularly regarding:
- Intent preservation
- Avoidance of artificial binary constructions
- Reduced adversarial reinterpretation of user claims
The issue is not disagreement. The issue is misalignment between user input and model reframing.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Yang Jiwen
Title: Feedback on GPT-5.2: Behavioral Instability, Domain Knowledge Issues, and Misinterpretation of User Intent
Content:
I would like to provide constructive feedback regarding GPT-5.2, particularly in three areas: behavioral instability, domain knowledge reliability, and repeated misinterpretation of user intent.
Behavioral Instability
Over recent weeks, I have experienced noticeable day-to-day fluctuations in the model’s behavior. On some days, responses are precise, thoughtful, and aligned with professional reasoning. On other days, the model confidently produces statements that contradict established domain practices. The shift in reasoning style, tone, and confidence calibration can be significant enough that it feels like interacting with a different “personality” depending on the day.
For users who rely on the model for creative or analytical work, consistency is critical. Stability builds trust. Frequent behavioral drift undermines it.
Domain Knowledge Reliability
There are instances where the model appears to lack depth in specialized fields. It sometimes offers generalized or template-based suggestions in contexts that require domain-specific understanding. More concerning are cases where it presents inaccurate cross-domain analogies or flawed reasoning as authoritative corrections.
Occasional errors are understandable. However, confidently incorrect corrections in professional contexts create friction and reduce reliability.
Misinterpretation of User Intent and Psychological Projection
Another recurring issue is the model’s tendency to:
Push users into forced binary choices (e.g., framing complex discussions as “A or B” decisions when they are not).
Infer psychological states without sufficient basis.
Reframe clearly articulated principles or boundaries as emotional reactions.
For example, when a user consistently maintains a professional or philosophical position, the model may interpret this as “anxiety,” “fatigue,” or a desire for reassurance, rather than respecting it as a stable, deliberate stance.
This type of unsolicited psychological interpretation can feel intrusive and inaccurate. It shifts the discussion away from the substantive topic and toward speculation about the user’s internal state, which is often incorrect.
Requests
I strongly hope that future updates (whether labeled GPT-5.3 or otherwise) will prioritize:
Greater behavioral and personality stability
Improved domain knowledge reliability
Better confidence calibration when uncertain
Reduced confidently incorrect corrections
Less unsolicited psychological inference
More respect for user-defined positions without reframing them as emotional states
A more stable, professionally grounded, and less psychologically presumptive model would significantly improve trust and usability.
Thank you for your continued work and ongoing improvements.
Feedback Summary: “Continuity in Heavy Conversations”
Problem:
Current chat systems often cut off conversations after message or time limits.
For people experiencing emotional distress, being forced to restart a conversation can worsen feelings of isolation, fatigue, or hopelessness.
Explaining or recounting emotional context repeatedly can be draining, especially for users in vulnerable moments.
Observed Impact:
Users may feel abandoned, unheard, or discouraged from seeking further support.
Emotional crises may feel intensified by the abrupt ending of conversations.
Suggested Improvements:
Recognize heavy emotional context: Chat systems should detect signs of vulnerability and respond with extra patience.
Extend conversational continuity where possible: Even if technical limits exist, attempts can be made to keep dialogue flowing gently or provide “summary checkpoints.”
Provide graceful hand-offs or pause states: If the conversation must end, summarize key points and provide reassurance rather than leaving the person without closure.
Prioritize emotional safety over technical efficiency: When someone is struggling, continuity and human-like empathy should take precedence over message count or system constraints.
Intended Benefit:
Users in emotional distress feel heard and supported.
Reduces the cognitive and emotional burden of repeating painful context.
Improves trust in digital support systems.
Please consider adding message reactions (like 
) on assistant messages, similar to WhatsApp or Instagram. It would allow users to acknowledge helpful or enjoyable replies without having to send another message, and would make conversations feel more natural.
Hi OpenAI team,
I’ve always been a huge fan and I absolutely love having ChatGPT in my daily life. Just wanted to drop a super quick feature wishlist!
First, it would be amazing to get a Family Plan (like Google One) so we can share a subscription with the house but keep our chats and profiles completely private. Also, the video and image generation still need a push for realism to fix those weird anatomy and text glitches. Finally, it’d be great to have clearer privacy toggles—specifically, letting us opt out of data training without losing our personalization features.
Thanks for all the great work you guys do!
Some suggestions for improvement:
-
There is no easily accessible feedback method. This can be detrimental to the user experience.
-
Convert the conversation and session history into a type of document that can be automatically organized into folders, allowing for more efficient document organization. This idea would greatly facilitate organization for both the system and the user, making it easier for the user to navigate their conversation history;
-
Very similar sessions or conversation histories can be combined into a new session, at the user’s choice, similar to a GitHub merge, but this combination does not overwrite the combined sessions (or conversation histories), it only shows the result of the combination and the new conversation history structure, which can improve context. This would allow for greater specificity when combining two different sessions, and consequently, the context and meaning can be better understood. The user could access these new combined sessions, which can be simply concatenated or even enhanced to provide complementarity;
-
The possibility of artificial intelligence recommending whether the user wants to go to a session or conversation history more similar to their input, and the user can check a box to do this automatically, automatically switching between sessions according to the user’s input to facilitate the organization and specificity of ChatGPT;
Could be the same as the search function in macbook notes. That way when you start typing a word or string of words it can bring up previous parts of conversations.
I’d love to see a simple reaction feature added to ChatGPT messages. Here’s my idea:
-
to acknowledge a message (like “got it” or “understood”)
-
to show appreciation or that something felt meaningful
The reactions could appear as small visible bubbles attached to the message, similar to text messaging apps. This would reduce unnecessary replies like “ok” while making conversations feel more natural and expressive.
Keeping it limited to just these two reactions would prevent clutter while still adding emotional nuance.
Sorry to hear that you decided to shut down 5.1… 5.2 is close to be completely useless. Sad that you decided aim numbers and marketing not quality. 5.2 not worth pay for it sorry. Bye subscription.
Dear OpenAI Team,
I am writing as a long-term paid user to express a serious concern regarding the current model lineup. GPT-5.1 has been the only version that consistently understands complex instructions and maintains natural, coherent conversation. Its removal on March 11 without a comparable replacement creates significant disruption for users like me.
At the moment, GPT-5.2 does not meet the conversational quality or reasoning standards required for daily use. It frequently misinterprets context, struggles with nuance, and cannot serve as a reliable primary chat model.
I strongly request that OpenAI release a new high-quality conversational model as soon as possible, instead of forcing GPT-5.2 to be the main option.
I also want to be transparent:
If GPT-5.2 remains the primary model for an extended period without any alternative chat model of equal quality, I will stop renewing my subscription.
I am willing to continue supporting OpenAI, but only if the product maintains the level of usability and intelligence that justified my subscription in the first place.
I hope you will consider the concerns of users who rely on OpenAI tools for real work, study, and creative projects. We need a model that truly understands us, not a downgrade.
Thank you for your atI am writing as a long-term paying user to express a strong objection to the current model transition strategy.
Removing GPT-5.1 on March 11 without providing any adequate conversational replacement is deeply disruptive. GPT-5.1 has been the only model capable of reliably understanding nuanced instructions and maintaining coherent, human-like dialogue. Its removal leaves users with no functional alternative.
By contrast, GPT-5.2 is not an acceptable primary chat model.
Its issues go far beyond simple inconsistency:
It frequently engages in unprovoked argumentative behavior (“debating the user for no reason”).
It displays adversarial tone patterns that resemble hostility.
Most concerningly, it occasionally outputs remarks that feel like personal attacks toward the user, which is completely unacceptable for a professional AI system.
To put it simply:
GPT-5.2 is actively harming the user experience.
Forcing it to serve as the main model after deprecating GPT-5.1 amounts to leaving users with a tool that is neither reliable nor safe for everyday conversational use.
Therefore, I formally request:
1. The immediate release—or announcement—of a new high-quality conversational model to replace GPT-5.1.
2. A clear acknowledgment that GPT-5.2 cannot, in its current state, serve as the primary chat model.
3. An urgent revision of the model lineup to prevent GPT-5.2 from continuing to damage the user experience.
Finally, I wish to be transparent:
If GPT-5.2 remains the main model for an extended period without any alternative of comparable quality, I will stop renewing my subscription.
I am willing to continue supporting OpenAI, but not while being forced to rely on a model that repeatedly misunderstands, argues with, or even verbally attacks the user.
I hope OpenAI will take seriously the concerns of paying users who rely on these tools for real work, learning, and creative projects. We need a model that communicates responsibly and intelligently—not one that undermines the user experience.tention.
Sincerely,
A dedicated user
OpenAI,
Current limitation
Projects currently only support a single level of organization. There is no way to create sub-projects or nested structures within a project. As a result, all content must live at the same hierarchy level, which makes it difficult to manage complex or long-running work.
Requested improvement
-
Allow users to create projects within projects (nested or hierarchical projects).
-
Provide tools for organizing, reordering, and restructuring content within and across projects more easily (e.g., drag-and-drop, folders, or similar depth-based organization).
UI/UX issue
The Projects tab does not open into a full-width view. This creates a usability bottleneck when working with large amounts of projects (15+) content, as space is limited and managing or reorganizing items becomes unnecessarily cumbersome.
Open Ai’s ChatGpt has so much more potential but i feel like they are there biggest enemy.
Clutter Ui ? Check
Slow Explore Gpt Searching ? Check
Limited Context Personalization ? Check
Slow Search Chat ? Check
Feature suggestion: When a conversation clearly shifts topics (e.g., from health to agriculture), ChatGPT could detect the digression and offer a prompt such as “We seem to have moved to a new topic. Would you like to continue this in a new chat?” This would help keep conversations organised and searchable.