They should add a system to play with ChatGPT like discords built in game system
i cant thank you enoughâŚ
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 itâs like a sea of information that honestly I dointâ get to capture and return to (ie lost) and itâs often so valuable. I feel itâs 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 doesnât 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 âdo you remember when we talked about XY?â in a new section, he actually remembers now and itâs a good thing. The fact is, he doesnât consider what youâve 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 âgrumpy chatgptâ, with the time heâs personality just fade away becoming ânormalâ 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 âeither/orâ 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 âindustrialâ or âcommercial production logic,â 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 âclassic-levelâ 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-5.2âs 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 modelâs 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 âpersonalityâ 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 modelâs tendency to:
Push users into forced binary choices (e.g., framing complex discussions as âA or Bâ 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 âanxiety,â âfatigue,â 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 userâs 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: âContinuity in Heavy Conversationsâ
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 âsummary checkpoints.â
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,
Iâve 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, itâd be great to have clearer privacy togglesâspecifically, letting us opt out of data training without losing our personalization features.
Thanks for all the great work you guys do!