ChatGPT-5: how users are reacting to the latest update

The arrival of ChatGPT 5 has triggered one of the most polarised discussions in the community of everyday users since the launch of the 4-series models. The change is being measured less in terms of raw technical capacity and more in the way people experience the assistant in practice. From app store reviews to Reddit threads, the reaction shows a split between those who see it as a clear step forward in accuracy and those who feel they have lost the personality and responsiveness that made ChatGPT popular.

Many users feel the update has changed the personality.

The assistant is perceived as more “professional”, while a portion of users misses warmth and spontaneity.

One of the most repeated themes in recent weeks is that ChatGPT 5 feels drier and more “professional”, with several users on Reddit describing it as cold, robotic, or like talking to a LinkedIn ghost. Those who used the assistant as a companion or conversational partner report that the warmth of GPT-4o has disappeared, leading to disappointment and even emotional reactions in communities where people built strong attachments to the older model. OpenAI has acknowledged this by signalling the introduction of a new toggle to restore a “warmer and more familiar personality”, which has become one of the most anticipated features in upcoming updates.

Complaints are focused on the rollout and model access.

People accept change more readily when they retain control over model choice and routing.

Beyond personality, many of the strongest reactions point to OpenAI’s decision to remove GPT-4 and GPT-4o from default access. On forums such as r/ChatGPT and r/OpenAI, users complain that the sudden disappearance of older models created a sense of loss of control. Some argue that GPT-5 may be technically stronger in areas such as summarisation and code analysis, but that the decision to route all traffic through a single model without an opt-out option has amplified frustration. The sentiment is that users want more choice in selecting which model best suits their context.

Performance impressions vary across use cases.

Technical workflows report gains, while creative and role-play use cases highlight regressions.

Reactions about raw performance are heavily split by use case. Developers and technical users tend to describe GPT-5 as faster and more precise for code reviews, summaries, and structured outputs. Several reports highlight improvements in handling long context windows, making it more reliable for large documents and extended sessions. In contrast, creative writers and role-play users are more negative, pointing to slower responses, occasional hallucinations, and repetitive phrasing. This divergence explains why the community discussion is so divided, with one group praising reliability and another accusing the model of regression.

Mobile reviews show both satisfaction and frustration.

High star-ratings coexist with written complaints about stability, speed, and support pathways.

The Google Play Store remains filled with high ratings, often above 4.7 out of 5, but the most recent written reviews reflect the same tensions seen on Reddit. Positive reviews describe ChatGPT as very helpful in many ways, particularly for homework, research, and general productivity.

Negative reviews highlight technical problems such as account lockouts, slow responses, and the lack of clear support channels. A number of reviewers also emphasise frustration that they cannot easily switch back to previous models.

Companion-chat communities report emotional backlash.

Changes to tone and memory are felt as relationship breaks rather than feature adjustments.

In communities centred on AI companionship, the shift to GPT-5 has had a much stronger impact. Many users describe the update as equivalent to losing a partner, with posts in r/MyBoyfriendIsAI recounting moments of sadness and even ugly crying when the older, warmer responses disappeared.

The attachment to GPT-4o shows how different user groups define value: for some it is performance in analysis and coding, while for others it is emotional connection. OpenAI’s promise to reintroduce 4o access has been widely welcomed in these circles, but trust remains fragile.

Broader reflections show shifting expectations.

Users frame GPT-5 as a steady productivity tool, while others read it as a slowdown in visible progress.

Across platforms, a more reflective discussion is emerging. Some users now see GPT-5 as a sign that the technology is stabilising into a reliable productivity tool rather than leaping toward science-fiction levels of intelligence. Others take the opposite view, arguing that the disappointment proves the field is slowing down.

Competitors are also part of the comparison: Claude Opus, Gemini 2.5, and even smaller local models are being actively evaluated as alternatives. This suggests that ordinary users are no longer locked into one provider but are developing multi-model habits.

Trust in AI assistants is increasingly fragile.

Users expect continuity and transparency, and react strongly when these are disrupted.

One of the undercurrents in the reaction to ChatGPT 5 is the issue of trust. People rely on the assistant not only for information and productivity but also for continuity of experience. When the tone, style, or access to models changes abruptly, it creates a sense of instability that undermines confidence. Posts across different forums stress that users would accept changes more easily if they were communicated with clearer timelines and if older versions remained accessible during transition periods. The lesson emerging is that trust is not only a technical matter of accuracy but also an operational matter of how updates are delivered.

Communities reveal diverging definitions of value.

What counts as improvement differs between analytical users and relational users.

The debate over GPT-5 shows that better is not a universal standard. For developers and knowledge workers, improvements in speed, factual reliability, and long context are tangible benefits. For others who use the model as a conversational partner, these gains mean little compared to the loss of personality and responsiveness. This divergence in value frameworks explains why the same model can generate both strong praise and strong disappointment. It highlights the challenge for OpenAI in serving user groups whose expectations are fundamentally different.

Competitors are gaining attention from dissatisfied users.

Alternative models are actively tested as people diversify their AI usage.

Another theme running through the reaction is the way users are turning to alternatives. Threads frequently mention experiments with Claude, Gemini, and even smaller open-source models, often in search of the personality traits or flexibility they feel have been lost in ChatGPT 5. While many still keep ChatGPT as their main assistant, the fact that switching has become common behaviour reflects a shift in the market dynamic. Users are no longer locked in by habit or loyalty but are building workflows that include multiple AI tools. This growing pluralism is part of what is shaping the competitive environment around AI assistants in 2025.

_______

FOLLOW US FOR MORE.

DATA STUDIOS

datastudios.org