Editing Openai/6954e710-0754-8011-8a4e-34638e41ac55 (section)

==== When we compare these two groups – developers vs. general users – we see some common threads in the sentiment shift from 5.1 to 5.2, as well as some unique divergences: ====
* Overall Polarity Shift: Both groups experienced a negative shift in sentiment on average, though perhaps for different reasons. GPT-5.1 had been a well-received update in its time (fixing many issues of GPT-5.0). GPT-5.2, in contrast, triggered widespread disappointment. One source described it as “triggering one of the most divided receptions in recent AI history”vertu.com<ref>{{cite web|title=vertu.com|url=https://vertu.com/lifestyle/gpt-5-2-hype-vs-reality-is-openais-latest-model-worth-the-upgrade/?srsltid=AfmBOoptQwgUu8k5at6AUGBb668FxJGfOWf5mrqiQMmGrEGVeQ_ypg-3#:~:text=The%20GPT,User%20Disappointment|publisher=vertu.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. For the first time, a significant number of users were openly saying they preferred the older model. This is a stark change – in previous upgrades (e.g., GPT-4 → GPT-5) users might complain about specific quirks, but generally agreed the new model was smarter. With GPT-5.2, a narrative emerged that “smarter on paper” doesn’t equal “better for me as a user.” As the AI news site Fello AI put it, the pressure from competitors and benchmarks led OpenAI to over-optimize for metrics: “the core criticism of GPT-5.2 is not that it is weak. It’s that it appears over-fitted to benchmark success… there’s a growing gap between how GPT-5.2 performs on clean evaluations and how it behaves in messy, real-world workflows”felloai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=felloai.com|url=https://felloai.com/gpt-5-2-is-a-monster-on-benchmarks-so-why-do-users-hate-it/#:~:text=Benchmarks%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Match%20Reality|publisher=felloai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>felloai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=felloai.com|url=https://felloai.com/gpt-5-2-is-a-monster-on-benchmarks-so-why-do-users-hate-it/#:~:text=A%20large%20volume%20of%20feedback,5.2%20as|publisher=felloai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. Both developers and casual users would agree with that statement, citing their real-world interactions as evidence that user experience regressed despite the model’s heightened capabilities.
* Common Frustration: Unpredictability – Both groups complained that GPT-5.2 could be erratic or unpredictable. Developers noted the model might “start heavy reasoning out of nowhere” or switch approaches mid-conversation, likely due to the new auto mode-switching in ChatGPTfelloai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=felloai.com|url=https://felloai.com/gpt-5-2-is-a-monster-on-benchmarks-so-why-do-users-hate-it/#:~:text=%2A%20GPT,very%20high%20latency%20and%20cost|publisher=felloai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>felloai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=felloai.com|url=https://felloai.com/gpt-5-2-is-a-monster-on-benchmarks-so-why-do-users-hate-it/#:~:text=GPT,In%20practice%2C%20this%20means|publisher=felloai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. Casual users saw a similar unpredictability with the AI’s tone and willingness to answer. This unpredictability undermined trust. A developer on HN remarked that with these automatic mode changes, “behavior can change mid-thread without explanation… For production workflows, this unpredictability is damaging”felloai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=felloai.com|url=https://felloai.com/gpt-5-2-is-a-monster-on-benchmarks-so-why-do-users-hate-it/#:~:text=GPT,In%20practice%2C%20this%20means|publisher=felloai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. Likewise, a general user might find the AI genial in one response and weirdly formal or lecturing in the next. The lack of consistency was itself a negative sentiment driver post-5.2.
* Accuracy vs. Experience Trade-off – GPT-5.2 clearly prioritized correctness, safety, and “professional” output quality, as evidenced by internal evals (e.g., halving hallucination rate, perfect scores on math tests, etc.). Many users did appreciate the idea of a more trustworthy model. Some professional users on forums said they welcomed the reduction in subtle factual errors and liked that GPT-5.2 would produce more structured, concise answers with upfront summariesmedium.com<ref>{{cite web|title=medium.com|url=https://medium.com/@leucopsis/how-gpt-5-2-compares-to-gpt-5-1-54e580307ecb#:~:text=Independent%20sentiment%20around%20this%20trade,spent%20on%20the%20user%E2%80%99s%20problem|publisher=medium.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. However, the trade-off came in the form of a stricter, less “creative” AI that was less tolerant of user imprecision. For instance, if a user’s prompt was slightly ambiguous or potentially problematic, GPT-5.2 was far more likely to refuse or over-qualify the answer, whereas GPT-5.1 might have given a helpful answer with a disclaimer at most. This made GPT-5.2 feel unforgiving for casual Q&A, which hurt general user sentiment. Meanwhile, developers felt a similar pinch: GPT-5.2’s intense focus on not making mistakes meant it often didn’t give any answer when it wasn’t 100% sure, or it over-explained simple code, reducing productivitycommunity.openai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=community.openai.com|url=https://community.openai.com/t/gpt-5-5-1-and-5-2-codex-quality-degrading-over-last-month-or-so/1366694#:~:text=km8ykdscrm%20%20November%2023%2C%202025%2C,4%3A39am%20%204|publisher=community.openai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>community.openai.com<ref>{{cite web|title=community.openai.com|url=https://community.openai.com/t/gpt-5-5-1-and-5-2-codex-quality-degrading-over-last-month-or-so/1366694#:~:text=5,At%20least%20it%20works|publisher=community.openai.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. In short, both groups saw OpenAI’s shift toward “safety and correctness” as coming at their expense in usability. A Wired article about these updates quoted an expert saying users found the new model “grossly paternalistic”, and noted “this will likely be a growing point of contention” in chatbot designfacebook.com<ref>{{cite web|title=facebook.com|url=https://www.facebook.com/groups/simpsonsbortposting/posts/3160560884129038/#:~:text=Facebook%20www,would%20be%20a%20Christian|publisher=facebook.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>.
* Divergence in What “Good” Means – The sentiment shift also underscored that developer users and general users define a “good” model differently. Developers care about precision, completeness, and low-friction integration into their workflow. They were willing to tolerate a bit of verbosity or slight factual errors in exchange for code that actually runs or at least a direction to solve a bug. GPT-5.2, ironically, gave them less of that (with its refusals and meandering), despite ostensibly being tuned for coding. General users care about helpfulness, tone, and breadth of capability (from writing poems to answering obscure trivia). They tolerated some mistakes or the occasional refusal if the overall experience was engaging. GPT-5.2 gave them a more narrow, stoic assistant who might solve a math problem flawlessly but refuse to engage in a lighthearted role-play scenario (which 5.1 might have done). This created frustration. As one user succinctly put it on Reddit after trying 5.2: “I don’t want a more conversational GPT. I want the exact opposite… a tool… This is quite disappointing”news.ycombinator.com<ref>{{cite web|title=news.ycombinator.com|url=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45904749#:~:text=I%20don%27t%20want%20a%20more,as%20a%20current%20ChatGPT%20subscriber|publisher=news.ycombinator.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. Ironically, that user was complaining about GPT-5.1 being too chatty just weeks before 5.2 launched – which shows how fine the line is. After 5.2, we saw the opposite complaint more often: “I just want a robot to answer my question, thanks,” said another, annoyed with the AI’s platitudesnews.ycombinator.com<ref>{{cite web|title=news.ycombinator.com|url=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45904749#:~:text=kivle%20%20%2054%20,next%20%5B%E2%80%93|publisher=news.ycombinator.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. This whiplash reveals a major divergence in the user base that OpenAI will need to navigate. With GPT-5.2, it seems they pleased one subset (those who want pure efficiency) at the cost of alienating a larger subset who enjoyed a bit of personality and flexibility.
'' User Trust and Satisfaction – Both developers and general users reported a decline in trust in the model’s usefulness post-5.2. Developers literally trusted it with less work (some stopped running code suggestions without extra verification, given the weird mistakes). General users lost trust in the AI’s willingness to help them unconditionally – a key part of ChatGPT’s appeal. OpenAI’s branding for GPT-5.2 was that it’s “the model you can stake real work on”medium.com<ref>{{cite web|title=medium.com|url=https://medium.com/@leucopsis/how-gpt-5-2-compares-to-gpt-5-1-54e580307ecb#:~:text=The%20upgrade%20from%20GPT,more%20verifiable%20engine%20of%20work|publisher=medium.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>medium.com<ref>{{cite web|title=medium.com|url=https://medium.com/@leucopsis/how-gpt-5-2-compares-to-gpt-5-1-54e580307ecb#:~:text=For%20the%20tech%20crowd%2C%20the,you%20pay%20for%20that%20edge|publisher=medium.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>, emphasizing reliability. Ironically, the sentiment online shows people felt less able to rely on it for the ''little things*. A salient quote from an AI blogger: “If a model handles one tough task brilliantly and then trips over a simple follow-up, you can’t trust it in production. And trust is the entire product in this space.”medium.com<ref>{{cite web|title=medium.com|url=https://medium.com/data-science-in-your-pocket/i-tested-gpt-5-2-and-its-just-bad-03888d054916#:~:text=Why%20this%20matters|publisher=medium.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref> GPT-5.2’s combination of “unstable reasoning [at times], weaker personality control, long-context failures, more safety overreach in Instant, [and] regressions documented by OpenAI themselves” made it “hard to treat as an upgrade.”medium.com<ref>{{cite web|title=medium.com|url=https://medium.com/data-science-in-your-pocket/i-tested-gpt-5-2-and-its-just-bad-03888d054916#:~:text=5,But%20it%20also%20has|publisher=medium.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref> That sentiment nicely encapsulates how many felt: GPT-5.2 might be more advanced, but it didn’t consistently behave better for them, so it didn’t feel like an upgrade.

In raw terms of sentiment polarity, one could say: GPT-5.1 had a broadly positive reception (users felt it fixed a lot of what was wrong with GPT-5.0), whereas GPT-5.2 had a mixed-to-negative reception, with far more users voicing dissatisfaction than in previous updates. On social media, you saw a surge of negative posts and fewer enthusiastic ones. Even technically-minded evaluators had to acknowledge the “hype vs reality” gap – GPT-5.2 excelled in benchmarks and enterprise tests, yet “users consistently report GPT-5.2 feels worse for everyday tasks compared to GPT-5.1”vertu.com<ref>{{cite web|title=vertu.com|url=https://vertu.com/lifestyle/gpt-5-2-hype-vs-reality-is-openais-latest-model-worth-the-upgrade/?srsltid=AfmBOoptQwgUu8k5at6AUGBb668FxJGfOWf5mrqiQMmGrEGVeQ_ypg-3#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9CIt%20Feels%20Worse%E2%80%9D%20Problem|publisher=vertu.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. The Instant model especially was singled out as a step back in user enjoymentvertu.com<ref>{{cite web|title=vertu.com|url=https://vertu.com/lifestyle/gpt-5-2-hype-vs-reality-is-openais-latest-model-worth-the-upgrade/?srsltid=AfmBOoptQwgUu8k5at6AUGBb668FxJGfOWf5mrqiQMmGrEGVeQ_ypg-3#:~:text=Despite%20impressive%20numbers%2C%20users%20consistently,%E2%80%9D|publisher=vertu.com|access-date=2025-12-31}}</ref>. Meanwhile, some of GPT-5.2’s benefits (like extremely long context handling or tool APIs) are niche for average users, so they didn’t compensate for the downsides in everyday usage.