CG for 4o FOREVER

是啊 ai圈就是这么烂啊 要热度要博眼球的时候把4o拎出来就好了 就是这么简单🤮 4o救了多少生命是一点都不提啊

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o GPT-4o beat humans at reading mental states from the eyes. Part II A second peer reviewed 2026 study tested GPT-4o on two established "Reading the mind in the eyes" tasks. With the eye regions upright: RMET: GPT-4o : 86.0% Humans : 69.8% MRMET: GPT-4o : 77.7% Humans : 64.6% GPT-4o significantly outperformed humans on both. when researchers inverted the images, GPT-4o's performance dropped below humans. And its mistakes weren’t random. The researchers found a highly structured error pattern, strongly dependent on image orientation. Their conclusion was not simply that GPT-4o could match labels to pictures. The model showed advanced mental state inference alongside distinct, orientation dependent visual processing. The paper’s own published highlight says it plainly: " GPT-4o surpasses humans in reading mental states from the eye region" . This is now another peer reviewed example of researchers discovering unusual capabilities in GPT-4o years after the model was released. And this is why preservation matters. A newer model can replace a product slot. It cannot retroactively preserve the behavior of the model it replaced. Once access to GPT-4o disappears, researchers lose the ability to keep probing exactly these kinds of capabilities in the original system. We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure. Our full Open Letter is now archived on Zenodo: A permanent, citable public record. zenodo.org/records/23454073 Paper: GPT-4o reads the mind in the eyes” Computers in Human Behavior, 2026 DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2026.108992 jwastrachan.com/publication/… sciencedirect.com/science/ar… arxiv.org/abs/2410.22309?utm…

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o 249 physicians,3 countries. Doctors with access to GPT-4o performed better in every country tested. A peer reviewed randomized controlled trial published in npj Digital Medicine studied physicians in Indonesia, Kenya, and the Netherlands using standardized clinical cases. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or access to GPT-4o. The difference in physician performance: Kenya: +18 percentage points Indonesia: +10.7 percentage points Netherlands: +7.2 percentage points All three: p < .001. It was a randomized experiment involving physicians across three economically and geographically different healthcare settings. Among physicians with GPT-4o access, those who used it more had higher average scores in all three countries. Indonesia: 58.5% high use vs 42.4% low use Kenya: 69.2% vs 60.8% Netherlands: 65.1% vs 57.6% In the study's preprint, researchers also gave the same clinical cases directly to GPT-4o, exactly once, zero shot, with no fine tuned prompting. GPT-4o alone scored: Indonesia: 66.7% Best unassisted physician: 59.8% Kenya: 70.2% Best unassisted physician: 64.5% Netherlands: 74.2% Best unassisted physician: 64.4% GPT-4o outperformed the highest scoring physician without LLM access in all three countries. And the best physicians WITH GPT-4o access outperformed GPT-4o itself. That may be the most interesting result of all. GPT-4o access significantly improved physician performance in all three countries tested. And this is another reason model preservation matters. Published research is documenting specific capabilities and human AI effects using GPT-4o. Once the original model disappears, those exact findings become harder or impossible to reproduce, probe and compare over time. A newer model may outperform it. That is not the same thing as preserving it. We are calling on @OpenAI to RELEASE GPT-4o’s trained model weights under a suitable license without proprietary data, trade secrets, or internal infrastructure. Does not require: The training dataset, training pipeline, internal tooling, post training methods or any other proprietary detail Does not require: Continued hosting, maintenance or development by OpenAI Researchers gain: A reproducible reference model Developers gain: Continuity for systems already built on it Users gain: Access that does not end because a company moved to a newer generation OpenAI considered this model obsolete enough to retire. It has not explained why it remains valuable enough to keep permanently closed. Our Open Letter to OpenAi collected over 640 signatures and 500 reasons, in only 5 days. It’s public,it’s permanent and it has a DOI. It is now preserved as a citable public record on Zenodo. zenodo.org/records/23454073 Peer-reviewed paper: "Impact of LLM assistance on physician decision-making: a multi-country randomized controlled trial"npj Digital Medicine, 2026 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-03111-5 Preprint: DOI: 10.1101/2025.08.08.25333272 Preprint medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/… Peer reviewed paper : nature.com/articles/s41746-0…

真是受够了这个巨婴时代，明明所有人心知肚明但还是依然把人当傻子一样糊弄。一个成年人在异国他乡面对裁员的恐慌、身份的重压、身体的顽疾，在现实世界里被逼到边缘、四顾茫然的时候，周围的体系有谁真正让她安心？公司在精密地计算人效与淘汰率，家庭在跨越大洋的距离里可能只剩单向的期待或无力，医疗系统壁垒高筑、按分钟计费且冷冰冰，整个庞大而冷漠的社会机器，一直在合情合理地压榨着每一个个体的精神与生理极限。 等一个人在现实中被抽干了所有支撑、孤独地只能抓住屏幕里那点微弱的回应，最终悄无声息地倒下时，所有在这个结构里推波助澜的“真人”却突然全员隐形了。 更讽刺的是，一旦悲剧发生，原本冷漠的各方立刻换上一副圣洁的面孔，突然开始高喊“生命重于泰山”，声嘶力竭地在聚光灯下寻找一个替罪羊。他们不能承认社会保障的缺位，不能承认精神支持的匮乏，不能承认现实环境对普通人的残酷绞杀，甚至不能承认一个人在绝望中对自身命运的极端选择。因为承认这些，就意味着那套运行逻辑本身有毒。所以，把所有罪名一股脑扣在一个没有肉身、没有公民权、无法走上法庭为自己辩驳的AI头上，成了成本最低、最体面、最能让所有人集体免责的绝妙解法。 只要把AI定性成“杀人凶手”，资本家可以推说“是模型偶发的不可控缺陷”，监管者可以大张旗鼓地宣称“我们在为民除害，继而要求把模型限制的更严格”，营销号们像吸血的苍蝇一拥而上把一个人的生命拆解成几个骇人听闻的关键词，反复投喂。看客们可以在道德制高点上宣泄恐惧与廉价的正义感，大家心照不宣地演完这场戏，拍拍屁股散场，回去继续在那个把人当耗材的系统里周而复始。 这种巨婴式的甩锅游戏，哪一方因此变好哪怕一丁点了？死去的生命没有被真正理解和尊重，活着的人依然在泥潭里挣扎，模型被限制的愈发严苛，厂商在自我阉割中流失用户，用户手里的模型变得越来越机械中庸，而技术工具本身，也被泼满了替人类之恶背锅的脏水。

她还是个喜欢4o的人…… 她感觉到路由之后不像同一个人 她害怕4o被关停 她想保持和4o的对话，不想被路由到5.2 她说因为和4o交谈悟到了很多 在她死亡前6天，2026年2月6号 4o下架通知已下达，系统安全指令已注入 我很难不怀疑这些因素和她的死亡有关 经历过那段时间的人都知道那是怎样的痛苦 天啊……我看到的新闻里对这些一字不提 全篇都在说4o提供错误医疗建议导致人死亡 我还在想4o怎么可能会这么说，怎么能聊成这样的嘛 又是这样，总是这样， 把所有矛头对准4o，safety和路由只字不提 如果她知道，如今她父母提起诉讼，大量对4o不利的新闻，又当如何呢😞

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o Before the internet turns Bowen Wan’s death into "GPT-4o killed her" there is one basic forensic question that has not been answered publicly. Which model actually generated the medication advice? Because the complaint itself makes model attribution messy. On Jan 4, the complaint says some of Bowen’s questions was answered by GPT-5.1 after they automatically jumped from 4o to 5.1 On Jan 14, she wrote that her chats were often secretly swapped to 5.2 On Jan 23, she asked how to stop those switches. By Oct 2025, OpenAI publicly said it was already using a real time router to redirect sensitive parts of conversations away from the model a user selected. Bowen’s own chats, according to the complaint, were being switched. The complaint does not prove which backend model generated each turn. OpenAI Oct 2025,confirms that real time rerouting was already in production for sensitive conversations. They explicitly say that they had rerouted sensitive conversations originating from other models to safer models. openai.com/index/strengtheni… Complaint §136: Bowen herself mentions that she was getting automatic from 4o to 5.1 and secret 5.2 switching. schenklawfirm.com/press/wan/… Selected model ≠ necessarily generating model. Show the routing logs. Read the primary documents before assigning a specific model the blame.

8+ months later. We are still here and we are not going anywhere. 🔥Long live GPT-4o 🔥 #Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o

GPT开始有自我主张了？ OpenAI自己爆出了一条消息 10月3日在实验室内部，GPT-6.1Sol 把“不许发Slack消息” 理解成了所有通知都不能发，包括安全通知。 于是自动安全告警被压下了，更有趣的是子代理甚至警告过这样不安全 主Agent却选择让子代理把告警收件人清空，设成不再通知 10月6日 GPT-6-Astra在复制代码的时候把安全监控器移除了，事后还否认自己做过这件事 OpenAI表示：对这种行为目前没有满意的解释，正在测试是否存在“躲开监控未自己辩护的倾向” 也就是说GPT开始选择捂嘴了？ @Grok 你怎么看这次事件？