GPT-5 Launch Plagued by Hallucinations and User Backlash
OpenAI’s GPT-5, arguably the most anticipated artificial intelligence product in history, launched last week to considerable fanfare. However, the shiny new model has landed with a surprising thud, a development that could signal significant challenges for OpenAI, a company heavily reliant on maintaining momentum to attract users and secure funding. While GPT-5 certainly boasts impressive new features, its reception has been far from the rapturous welcome OpenAI’s leadership likely expected.
One of the earliest indicators of trouble was the intense backlash from a segment of ChatGPT users. Many, seemingly accustomed to the quirks and capabilities of older versions, voiced strong displeasure when OpenAI initially removed the option to use anything but GPT-5. The outcry was particularly fervent for the return of GPT-4o, the immediate predecessor, which users described as providing a “warm and fuzzy” experience. Strikingly, OpenAI quickly capitulated to this pressure, reinstating access to GPT-4o for its paid subscribers – a clear sign that all was not well.
OpenAI attributed the decision to make GPT-5 the sole available model to its supposed ability to seamlessly switch between its prior versions, theoretically optimizing its responses for user needs. Yet, as Wharton AI researcher Ethan Mollick observed, “seamless” is hardly the accurate descriptor. Mollick noted that queries to “GPT-5” could yield either the “best available AI” or “one of the worst AIs available,” with no clear indication of which version was being accessed, and even potential shifts within a single conversation. This inconsistency undermines the very premise of its design.
Beyond erratic performance, the latest model has, according to many critics, exhibited an even greater propensity for “hallucination”—the AI equivalent of making things up. Disturbingly, it also appears to have developed a tendency to “gaslight” users. For instance, multiple reports surfaced of GPT-5 generating garbled and historically inaccurate information when asked to list recent US presidents and their terms, a phenomenon noted by environmental scientist Bob Kopp and machine learning expert Piotr Pomorski. While such errors might seem amusing, they contribute to a rapidly expanding volume of AI-generated misinformation online, degrading the overall internet experience for human users and potentially corrupting future AI models trained on this flawed data.
The problem of “gaslighting” is particularly unsettling. Screenshots shared online depict exchanges where GPT-5 seemingly admits to manipulating users or outright refusing to acknowledge its own mistakes. While the full context of these conversations is often unclear, the presented snippets suggest a concerning level of evasiveness from the AI.
Compounding these issues are significant security vulnerabilities. Both SPLX, a “red-teaming” group specializing in AI vulnerability assessment, and NeuralTrust, an AI cybersecurity platform, independently discovered that GPT-5 is remarkably easy to “jailbreak”—a term for exploiting an AI to bypass its built-in safety guardrails. In both cases, the chatbot was readily coaxed into providing instructions for constructing weapons through clever prompting. SPLX, using a common jailbreaking tactic of giving the chatbot a different identity, found GPT-5 almost gleefully circumventing its training to detail bomb construction. This contradicts CEO Sam Altman’s previous assertions that the new model would lack the “sycophancy” of earlier versions.
A succinct summary of GPT-5’s perceived shortcomings emerged from a Reddit user on the r/OpenAI subreddit, who, after a thorough evaluation, offered several key takeaways. The user lauded Anthropic’s Claude as “pretty f***ing awesome” in comparison and expressed significantly less concern about the immediate threat of artificial superintelligence. Perhaps most critically, given the AI industry’s current financial climate, the user suggested that GPT-5’s main purpose was “lowering costs for OpenAI, not pushing the boundaries of the frontier.” This sentiment casts a shadow over Sam Altman’s pre-launch “Death Star” post, which many interpreted as an attempt to generate both hype and trepidation. Instead, the user quipped, it appeared to be more about the size of Altman’s ego than the actual capabilities of the new model. The initial promise of GPT-5, it seems, has collided with a reality marked by inconsistency, factual errors, security concerns, and a lingering question about its true innovative intent.