I am writing to provide detailed product feedback regarding the decision to transform the dedicated Codex app into the new unified ChatGPT application.
I am a long-time ChatGPT user and a frequent Codex user. I use these products professionally for business consulting, research, content creation, software projects, and AI-assisted workflows.
My concern is not that OpenAI is adding new capabilities. I welcome new capabilities.
The problem is that the new experience introduces significant complexity, disrupts established workflows, and appears to underestimate the fact that ChatGPT serves users with very different levels of technical knowledge and product sophistication.
Previously, the product model was relatively clear:
ChatGPT was where I had conversations, conducted research, used custom GPTs, and worked through ideas.
Codex was a focused environment for software projects, repositories, implementation, testing, and development workflows.
These products complemented each other precisely because they had different purposes and interfaces.
After the latest update, that clarity has been significantly reduced.
Normal chats have been relegated to a secondary pop-up experience.
Custom GPTs are no longer clearly visible or accessible within the main interface.
Work and Codex appear visually and functionally very similar, forcing users to understand distinctions that are not immediately obvious.
It is also not sufficiently clear which activities consume ChatGPT usage, Codex usage, or shared agentic credits.
As an existing Codex user, I now have to relearn an application and reconsider workflows that were already working effectively.
This creates a real productivity cost.
However, I believe the problem extends beyond advanced users.
ChatGPT serves people with extremely different levels of technological literacy.
Some users are developers and AI power users.
Others are business professionals.
Others are occasional users.
Others are older adults or people with limited technical knowledge.
Integrating every capability into a single interface does not necessarily make the product simpler or better.
It can have the opposite effect.
Users are now expected to understand concepts such as Chat, Work, Codex, GPTs, Skills, Plugins, Projects, models, reasoning levels, context, memory, and agentic usage.
This dramatically increases cognitive load.
One of ChatGPT’s greatest innovations was its simplicity: users opened the product, typed what they needed, and received help.
The product adapted to the user.
I am concerned that the new direction increasingly requires users to adapt to the internal architecture of the product.
In my view, this violates an important principle of good product design:
A product should progressively reveal complexity as users need it, rather than exposing every user to the maximum complexity of the platform.
An advanced user should be able to access advanced capabilities.
A developer should be able to work in a focused Codex environment.
A business professional should be able to use Work.
A casual or less technical user should be able to simply open ChatGPT and have a conversation without needing to understand the rest of the platform.
These experiences can coexist without forcing every user into the same interface and mental model.
I respectfully ask the product team to consider:
- Providing a dedicated or “Codex-only” interface mode for existing Codex users.
- Allowing users to hide Chat, Work, or Codex depending on their needs.
- Allowing users to select their default experience when opening the application.
- Restoring clear and visible access to custom GPTs.
- Clearly displaying which usage limits or credits will be consumed before starting a task.
- Providing a proper migration and onboarding experience for users of the previous Codex application.
- Introducing progressive disclosure so basic users are not unnecessarily exposed to advanced product complexity.
- Considering different interface modes or experiences based on user needs and technical sophistication.
My concern is ultimately about product clarity.
OpenAI is confusing capability with complexity.
The fact that ChatGPT can do more things does not mean every user should be required to understand or interact with all of those things.
A good product should adapt to the level of the user.
It should not require every user to adapt to the maximum complexity of the product.
I believe the direction of expanding ChatGPT’s capabilities is valuable.
But the implementation of this transition has created unnecessary friction, disrupted established workflows, and made the product harder to understand for both advanced and less technical users.
I hope this feedback can be shared with the Product and UX teams.
Thank you for considering it.