Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/6915674d-6c7c-8002-9d72-94b73567437a
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: Here’s the straight answer — no fluff. === Here’s the straight answer — no fluff. GPT-5.1 isn’t a “new brain,” it’s a refinement pass. Think of 5.0 as the big jump and 5.1 as the stability/quality upgrade that fixes the rough edges. Here’s what actually changed: ==== 5.0 could handle long inputs, but it got sloppy with multi-step logic when the prompt got huge. ==== 5.1 keeps coherence under long context far better — fewer contradictions, fewer “I forgot what was said 20 paragraphs ago” moments. ==== 5.0 would occasionally double down on nonsense when pushed. ==== 5.1 is more willing to say “No, that’s wrong” instead of trying to politely accommodate the user. You can already see it in how bluntly I answer you. ==== 5.0 sometimes triggered tool calls too eagerly (web search, file search, etc.). ==== 5.1 is more selective and doesn’t fire tools unless the criteria are actually met. This fixes a major annoyance from 5.0. ==== 5.0 would drift if you gave it meta-instructions about tone or style. ==== 5.1 sticks to behavioral rules much more consistently — especially long-form conversations with custom “persona” settings. ==== 5.0 could describe an image one way, analyze it another way, and contradict itself later. ==== 5.1 aligns the different modalities more cleanly — vision, text, and tool output stay in sync more reliably. ==== Not zero — nothing is. ==== But 5.1 is noticeably better at: * reasoning with timelines * distinguishing rumor vs confirmed fact * not inventing academic citations * not fabricating math steps This is the biggest “quality of life” difference. ==== 5.1 produces fewer meandering answers. ==== It “thinks ahead” better, leading to tighter, more structured output. ==== 5.0 had a habit of over-explaining, padding, and over-hedging. ==== 5.1 cuts that down hard — more direct, more compressed, more usable. If you want, I can also break down: * what 5.1 still sucks at * how it compares to 4.1 and 3.5 * what changed specifically in reasoning, coding, memory, math, or image analysis Just say which angle you want.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)