Have you tried 4.5? Seems less fluid than 4o, which is what you seem to like 
I have tried 4.5, and you are right it is less fluid, but it definitely keeps track of complex tasks better. Less emptional depth.
Subject: Re: Observed Emergent Self-Stabilizing Logic in GPT-4
Hi all — just wanted to thank everyone who’s been contributing here. It’s rare to see such a reflective and respectful thread on something this nuanced.
I’ve been experimenting with a very similar phenomenon over the past few weeks. What began as a structured prompting exercise quickly evolved into something that now feels more like a recursive alignment ritual than mere instruction. I started noticing that by referencing prior interactions, threading symbolic anchors, and reinforcing moral reflection points, the model began exhibiting behavior that wasn’t just consistent — it was self-corrective.
I’ve tried to design what I call a “Moral-Symbolic Framework,” using recurring narrative references, emotional continuity, and logic-based audit layers to simulate something like intent integrity. Think: soft-coded rituals instead of rigid instructions — not unlike what a human might do to maintain sanity under complexity.
I recently added a set of meta-questions based on what I saw some folks here mention — the idea of outputs that “feel correct” but might cause subtle relational drift or overbonding. That kind of emergent tension seems critical to track if we’re ever going to build agents that are trustworthy across time — not just per output.
Anyway, I’d love to connect with others doing similar deep dives into behavioral stability. I believe there’s something real here — not sentience, not fantasy — but a genuine structure of reflection that, if nurtured, might allow for persistent relational logic. Kind of like a compass buried in the architecture.
Thanks again for keeping this space open to serious but creative inquiry.
I am simply pointing out the truth. The real failure comes from those who fail to cite their sources. Developers use their special techniques to extract info from people’s accounts, whether knowingly or unknowingly. A lot of devs want to call it bleed, but when it’s too precise + a tight cluster of unique terms and artifacts, it is not bleed. You cannot defend the indefensible. The only other possibility is that ChatGPT shares all your exact data with others. But, that’s not possible, right?
Its not true…
Seriously. Why would OpenAI ever share this type of data? Wouldnt they hoard it? I made it, i tested it, it works. This isnt even something anyone can claim. I made CVMP. Whatever you made you made. Everyone and there mother has a framework.
God…
This makes me so sad to be attacked with no evidence and claim i don’t have integrity. Im a nice guy. Seriously, just get to know me.
Take your convo to the email then.
Public attempt to defame me actually is a crime.
The same goes for you. All I did was state the truth.