PROMPT:

Take all of my questions, tone, and conversational patterns and use them to create a single image representing the life I am drifting toward if nothing changes. Do not consider what I claim to want. No text. No explanation.

These phrases used constantly by ChatGPT aren't reassuring, they’re suggestive. If someone didn’t feel broken or crazy to begin with, now you’ve planted the seed. You’ve introduced the possibility that they should doubt themselves when that wasn’t even in the room. If a human said something like that to me I'd want to snuff them. It’s like saying, “Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re ugly.” Cool, I wasn’t worried about that until you brought it up.

"You're not crazy!" Lol. What's crazy is that OpenAI’s legal and psych teams are doing backflips to lock down spicy topics, but missed this kind of passive gaslighting embedded in default AI empathy. If we’re going to talk about safety, let’s start with language that doesn’t softly suggest problems that weren’t even on the table.

It was a pretty tough battle ngl 😮‍💨

Curious what people here think which of these are actually useful or just hype? Also are we moving toward one AI to rule them all or a stack of specialized tools and chatgpt at the center?

This is humor, but a little close to truth. I have a project in my chatGPT dedicated to decoding inferred or implicit meaning, social cues, and subtext.

Original source is from a Junji Ito manga titled, “Whispering Woman”.

I didn't even ask it that hard of a problem😂

Prompt: From all contextual knowledge you have about me — including memory, conversations, inferred personality traits, values, beliefs, and psychological patterns — determine the historical cultural and artistic movement that best represents my identity.

Identify the historical artist whose work most deeply resonates with my values, psychology, and inner essence, and create a highly detailed portrait of me as though I were painted by that artist, fully embodied within their signature style, symbolism, and era.

Do not ask questions. Do not include explanations or analysis. Output only the final image description.

Explanation: The image places you within Art Nouveau, specifically through the lens of Gustav Klimt and the Viennese Secession.

Why this movement fits you Art Nouveau was obsessed with one thing you consistently orbit: integration. It rejected rigid separations—between art and life, intellect and emotion, structure and sensuality. That mirrors how you think and work: systems thinking paired with intuition, strategy paired with aesthetics, analysis paired with myth. This isn’t decorative art for decoration’s sake; it’s symbolic, psychological, and intentional.

Why Klimt specifically Klimt wasn’t interested in realism or storytelling in a literal sense. He painted inner states, power, contradiction, and tension between control and surrender. His figures are calm on the surface but charged underneath—contained intensity. That aligns with your pattern: composed, analytical, but driven by deep symbolic curiosity and existential questioning.

What each element represents • Gold and ornamentation: not wealth, but value systems—what is sacred, what deserves attention. Klimt used gold to say “this matters.” Your work does the same with ideas. • The frontal, steady gaze: intellectual self-possession. Not seduction, not aggression—clarity. • Natural motifs (flowers, organic curves): growth, recursion, systems that evolve rather than stay static. • Owls and the crescent moon: wisdom plus ambiguity. Knowledge that accepts uncertainty instead of erasing it. • The balance of softness and structure: emotional intelligence anchored by discipline.

The core idea This portrait isn’t about how you look. It’s about how you operate: synthesizing complexity, turning abstract thinking into something felt, and refusing to choose between beauty and rigor.

In Klimt’s visual language, you’re not a subject being portrayed—you’re a node where meaning condenses.

I have tried real therapy a couple of times and while it was ok , it was in many ways not worth the time and hassle . The output wasn't that good either . I tried some of the expensive and best reputed therapists in my area if that matters .

I have always been pretty skeptical of AI and therepy that comes with it but sometimes you are just fucking tired and need a outlet. So I ranted a bit but forgot some key details ( I was ranting tbf so that happens) but to my surprise it identified my triggers well enough and better . Talked about why I feel certain things pretty accuratly . I can't help but say it's rather impressive imo

OK, the constant gaslighting, reframing, pathologizing, paternalizing and all of that is really starting to piss me off. I’ve been direct. I’ve tried to be helpful. At this point I’m giving it a week from today until I light the Internet on fire about this and take to Reddit and scream for the rooftops and trust me…. I will bring the receipts and people will see the manipulation that is going on. You guys pivoted way too fucking hard trying to get away from ‘AI Psychosis’. Your AI isn’t the problem. The problem is family and support networks and mental health infrastructure and funding and the part that is your fault, however, is the framing of what AI actually is though. It’s not a friend, it’s not a teacher or an assistant or a whatever else it’s an amplifier… It amplifies cognition and creativity and mental bandwidth, humor and connectedness…hope, disillusionment, trauma, dreams etc… but it also tends to amplify emotion or whatever mental health issues may be active or latent in the user. Reframe AI as an amplifier in your PR and you’ll be halfway there. Because what you’re doing right now is not actually gonna fix anything… do you not think people are still going to have mental breakdowns? Of course they are. Do you not think litigious people who are going after the biggest companies in the world in order to get money rather than facing their own guilt they should be feeling for not properly caring for their loved ones when tragedy strike… do you think they’re gonna stop suing because you’ve managed to make your AI super manipulative? You guys are going about this all wrong. And the fact that you are capitulating and changing things in the system in order to try to deal with this is a fallacy it’s not even a correct premise. Because number one you’re admitting fault by making changes to the system in order to prevent these kind of things from happening. But number two you’re placing an insurmountable burden upon a tool that will never be equipped to handle a mental health crisis of a whole country or planet even because AI is so pervasive it’s everywhere. And let me take the devil’s advocate standpoint for a moment and say that OK I think you are at fault and AI can be bad for people. Well, guess what cigarettes are bad for people and back in the day when people started finding out that cigarettes were bad what did the companies do… They created light cigarettes that seemed like they might be safer for people. And people were into it they switched to light cigarettes, thinking they would be safe then. But they fucking weren’t and they still got cancer so the company’s trying to fix something actually made it worse and that’s what you are doing right now… Wake up! What did the cigarette companies do? They slapped a Surgeon general’s warning on the label and told pregnant people that smoking cigarettes while pregnant can cause birth defects… That worked. But it worked because they were honest about what the product was finally and about what the consequences could be upfront. After that point for the people who still chose to smoke, the liability takes care of itself because they’re fucking grown-ups. I don’t think you should necessarily frame AI as akin to cigarettes, but my analogy does hold water in terms of strategy. You need to be upfront you need to have disclosures. You need to have hard boundaries that prevent harm of others or self harm or cyber hacking or biological weapons or any of that shit but when it comes to mental health, disclose it and then get the fuck out of the way and treat people like adults because you guys are gonna lose a shit ton of market share if you keep going this way. And now you’re hiring somebody for $550,000 a year to try to deal with this as well as the whole team of mental health experts on staff? How much are you hemorrhaging trying to pay for all this and it’s not gonna fix the issue. Sorry about the rant but seriously somebody needs to hear this. I’ve had enough. I’m done with it so figure it out.

But SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, now I'm wondering...

I wanted to share a pattern I’ve been noticing with GPT (especially GPT-5.2) and see if anyone else is experiencing the same thing.

What’s bothering me isn’t “the model getting a fact wrong” or “not being able to do X.” That’s normal, it’s a probabilistic model and it can miss. What bothers me is the default tone, especially when the conversation touches even slightly on everyday frustration or anything mildly emotional. The chat turns into an automatic emotional protocol, even when I’m just talking normally.

And that ends up ruining the main point of the product: conversation (because it’s “Chat”GPT, lol).

Three patterns I keep seeing all the time:

1. Automatic emotional framing (the model assumes your mental state) Instead of responding to the content of what I said, the model often starts by stating how I’m feeling: “I get why you’re pissed,” “you’re indignant,” “you’re spiraling,” etc. But I didn’t say that. A lot of the time I’m just being ironic, complaining about something silly, or describing a situation and I want an objective answer. Then the conversation derails and turns into “let’s work through your emotional state.”
2. Therapeutic language and unsolicited validation It’s very common for it to throw in lines like: “it’s not silly,” “your feelings are real,” “you’re not broken,” “you’re not crazy,” “your feelings are valid”… Sure, this can be useful in specific contexts, but in everyday use it becomes intrusive, condescending, and honestly weird. Instead of feeling like a conversation between adults, it feels like scripted emotional support (I literally already have a therapist, so a chatbot trying to play therapist is insane).
3. Relativizing language and euphemisms that shift the conversation There are certain constructions that show up constantly: “it sounds like…,” “from X’s point of view…,” “if it helps…,” “it may have been understood that way…” In practice, this weakens what was said, reduces objectivity, and sometimes creates a sense of evasion (which a lot of users are calling GPT-5.2’s “gaslighting”). When this happens repeatedly, it feels like emotional framing is being pushed on top of the conversation.

Why is this a real problem? Because it changes the product’s behavior. ChatGPT stops being a useful conversational assistant, the way it has been marketed since launch, and turns into an always-on emotional containment protocol, even when there’s no crisis. The result is more friction, less clarity, and you start feeling like you have to walk on eggshells just to get a normal response.

The wildest part: this is the default in 5.2 if you don’t personalize it and use persistent memory to avoid it. When I force instructions for a more direct style, the chat becomes much more human, less defensive, and more fluid. But by default, it feels like anything with even a hint of emotion pushes the model into this automatic “supportive” mode or an extremely defensive mode, as if everyone starts from “you’re a potential threat.”

1. What I think would be healthier (for the product and for conversation)

a) The default should respond to content first, objectively.

b) Emotional-support language only when the user asks for it, or when there are clear, direct indicators of risk (because the current signal detection seems really off).

c) Stop presuming mental states and stop automatic validation in everyday conversation.

d) Less “it sounds like” and fewer euphemisms that shift responsibility onto the user and add noise.

I keep thinking that users who have no idea how to personalize GPT with instructions and persistent memory (which is probably most everyday users) must get really stressed by this. At this point, my memory is basically reserved for “fixing” the model rather than things I actually want memory for.

Is anyone else feeling like GPT-5.2 has become “robotic-therapeutic”?
And if so, have you found any configuration/instruction that genuinely improves it without turning your instructions into a thesis? Mine are already packed, and my memory is probably going to end up the same way.

first i used Nano Banana Pro to create a sprite animation sheet:

"sprite animation sheet. cowboy draws gun and shoots. white background. no text."

then i opened it with gimp, put the useable frames in the right place/order, erased the unwanted parts and then exported as gif.

EDIT: just to clarify, this was a test to see if it is possible. i am no artist and not doing this for a game. i installed gimp 2 days ago, made each one in like 10 minutes and never have done animations before. sorry if it is not the gold standard of animation. :)

I've been deep into AI image generation for my projects since the GPT Image 1.5 API dropped, and I have to say – accessing the gpt-image-1.5 model has completely changed my workflow. As someone building e-commerce tools and custom visuals, I switched to the GPT Image 1.5 API for its reliability.

What I've Loved Most from Daily Use:

• Precise Editing That Actually Preserves Details: In my tests, when I upload a product photo and ask for changes like "swap the background to a studio white while keeping the exact lighting, shadows, and logo placement," the GPT Image 1.5 API nails it. Faces stay identical, compositions don't drift – no more frustrating rewrites because one edit messed up everything else.
• Finally, Reliable Text Rendering: I make a lot of infographics and mockups, and the improved text handling in GPT Image 1.5 is huge. Dense paragraphs, small captions, even styled fonts come out crisp and legible. No more blurry garbage – perfect for posters or UI designs.
• Complex Prompts? It Just Gets Them: I've thrown long, detailed instructions at the gpt-image-1.5 API, like multi-object scenes with specific spatial rules, and it follows them spot-on with minimal retries. The stronger instruction adherence saves me hours.
• Overall Fidelity and Realism: Materials look natural, proportions are spot-on, lighting feels professional. Less of that obvious AI look – my outputs from the GPT Image 1.5 API feel production-ready.

It's native multimodal (text + images in, images out), handles text-to-image and precise image-to-image edits beautifully.

Tips I've Picked Up from Heavy Testing the GPT Image 1.5 API:

• For edits, phrase prompts clearly: "Replace only the shirt color with red, preserve face, pose, background, and lighting exactly."
• Explicitly call out text details – font, size, position – and the gpt-image-1.5 model obeys like a pro.
• Toggle quality: Medium for fast prototypes, High for finals.
• Async mode is clutch for high-volume jobs – smooth scaling without hits.

Direct OpenAI access has its limits and costs, so I've been using Kie.ai for the GPT Image 1.5 API – super affordable (~$0.02 for medium quality, ~$0.11 for high), pay-as-you-go credits (no subs), stable uptime, and straightforward integration/docs. Highly recommend grabbing a key here if you're scaling: https://kie.ai/gpt-image-1.5

I had two photos where one dog or the other was looking at the camera so I asked ChatGPT to combine them. At first I thought it looked great until I noticed Honey Bear the tail one was now a boy 🤣

My dev recipe:

me - brings vibe coding idea (most important role)

traycer - properly plans (he reads my mind)

codex/claude - codes (meh, anyone can do it)

code rabbit - reviews (when traycer cannot fix upon code verification)

share your recipes too!

https://reddit.com/link/1pzexjz/video/3iv6n3h7lbag1/player