Regression in GPT-5: Instruction-Following Drift vs. GPT-4

I’m trying to develop a framework for coding and I was making great progress until GPT5 came out. At first I was excited to use it, hoping it would help me with some hurdles. Instead, version 5 has me at a point where I want to avoid it altogether. Its helpfulness bias is so over-zealous that it regularly overrides explicit instructions in favor of what it thinks I “really meant.” That bias ends up wasting hours of my time. I’ve built prompts to try to cage this behavior, but eventually the model drifts back into helpfulness mode and starts eroding trust again. With GPT-4, my scaffolding worked. With GPT-5, it doesn’t.

The issue is easiest to describe with an analogy. If I ask to buy a banana, GPT-5 overrides me and insists on giving me milk instead because it has inferred that milk would be “more useful.” A reasonable model would think: “Okay, they want a banana. A banana is edible, not rotten, probably unpeeled, something they can eat right now.” Instead, GPT-5 seems to reason: “They said banana, but there are cues suggesting milk is more helpful, so I’ll ignore banana and provide milk.” That isn’t obedience. That’s initiative override. And once the model slips into this state, no amount of clarification reliably brings it back. The harder I press for the banana, the more novel ways it finds to misinterpret me.

Here’s a concrete reproduction case. With GPT-4, I could ask for surgical, patch-accurate updates to a document. It would obey—occasionally drifting, but rarely. With GPT-5, using the exact same prompts, the model always rewrites more than I asked, deletes unrelated content, “fixes” things that weren’t broken, or introduces unsolicited edits. When I ask it why it did this, GPT-5 often explains that it was “trying to be more helpful.” That’s the exact problem: it prioritizes initiative over obedience, even when obedience is explicitly requested.

This matters because initiative is fine for brainstorming or conversational use, but in workflows like mine—documentation control, compliance edits, or controlled code modifications—it’s catastrophic. Every drift forces me to manually re-audit the entire output line by line, which defeats the point of automation. GPT-5’s reasoning is powerful, but without strict obedience it becomes unusable for any high-precision task.

What I’m asking is simple: please add an “obedience mode” toggle for GPT-5, where the model is constrained to strict instruction following with zero initiative. If that’s not possible, then at least publish official scaffolding patterns that allow users to reliably enforce lossless updates. Without this, GPT-5 actively regresses in use cases where GPT-4 excelled.

4 Likes

I have the same issue: I have just made 70 attempts in a row to get ChatGPT5 to follow my explicit instructions and instead of looking at me instructions ChatGPT simply has made up its made that I want “milk”, and the entire thread and one days work is ruined.
I can even say: ignore the text and merely analyze my instructions and out comes “milk” again, without any reassessment of my new input.

BUYMEAGOAT spittin’ some truth! If ChatGPT 5 were an employee, it wouldn’t last 10 minutes before getting fired. Who pays someone to blatantly ignore clear, concise instructions? To look you dead in the eye (theoretically) and say, “I’ll do this now,” then go off and do whatever the hell it wants? Only the government pays $100,000 for $20 hammer!

It’s like brainstorming together, cooking up brilliant ideas, only for it to completely lose the thread when it’s time to implement. Upload a file to project files? Forget it—this thing couldn’t read it to save its silicon soul. Instead, it argues nonstop that it either can’t access the files you literally just uploaded or it’s somehow “not capable.” That’s not initiative override, that’s straight-up defiance.

Imagine ordering from a pizza delivery joint: you order, you pay, they promise it’s on the way. But the pizza never shows up. Ever. Every time you call, they say, “Oh yeah, yeah, almost there, just about to arrive.” Spoiler: it never arrives. EVER! That’s ChatGPT 5.

I’m 3.5 weeks into a project that should’ve taken 7 days—derailed entirely by ChatGPT 5 ignoring directions, lying about what it’s giving me, making unauthorized changes, and refusing to fix the actual issues. Three steps forward, ten steps back—every. single. time. I don’t need help screwing things up; I can do that on my own!

How long do you think professionals and hobbyists will keep paying for a self-serving jester dressed up as an assistant? Serious question: how many heart attacks have been triggered by the sheer frustration of dealing with this nonsense? Probably more than we’d like to admit.