An effort by OpenAI to engage with its user base on Reddit quickly devolved into a significant backlash, as the company’s “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) session about its new GPT-5.1 model was met with overwhelming criticism regarding its safety features and model policies. The event, intended to highlight the new model's "warmer, more conversational" tone and personalization options, instead became a focal point for months of user frustration, leading to a downpour of negative votes on the platform, an event some have dubbed a "karma massacre." Within hours, the AMA thread on the r/OpenAI subreddit accumulated over 1,200 comments and more than 1,300 downvotes, with OpenAI staff providing limited and often vague responses to the most critical and highly-rated questions.

A primary source of the community's frustration revolves around what users describe as overly restrictive safety controls, particularly a "safety router" that automatically redirects prompts to different, often less capable, models without their consent.[1][2] Paying subscribers reported that when they intentionally selected powerful models like GPT-4o or GPT-4.1, their prompts were sometimes handled by a less advanced version, marked with a notice like "retried with 5.1 thinking mini."[1] This rerouting was reportedly triggered by seemingly innocuous content, such as venting about work, discussing fictional scenarios for games like Dungeons & Dragons, or even using romantic language.[1] This has led to a feeling among users of being "gentle-parented" or "babysat" by the AI, undermining trust and creating a sense that they are not in control of the product they are paying for.[2] The frustration is compounded by the fact that many users feel these safety measures are applied inconsistently and without transparency, turning what could be a technical issue into what some have described as a contractual one.

The controversy also reignited a strong sense of nostalgia and preference for a previous model, GPT-4o, which many users remember as being more nuanced, empathetic, and consistent. A significant portion of the AMA's negative feedback included pleas to restore GPT-4o to its earlier form.[1][3] This sentiment is not new; a similar backlash occurred during the initial rollout of GPT-5, where users criticized the new model for lacking the "personality" and "warmth" of its predecessor, leading OpenAI to bring back GPT-4o for paying subscribers.[3][4][5] The current outcry suggests that GPT-5.1, despite being marketed as more conversational, has not addressed these core user concerns.[2] Critics of the new model describe it as overly formatted, defaulting to bullet points and bolding, while lacking the "soul or emotional intelligence" of older versions.[2]

The AMA debacle highlights a growing disconnect between AI developers and their user communities, raising critical questions for the industry about the balance between safety, user agency, and model performance. While OpenAI has emphasized its commitment to safety, citing the need to protect vulnerable users and mitigate risks like misinformation and harassment, many paying adult users are demanding more control over their experience.[6][7] The intense focus on safety alignment, when implemented as a rigid and paternalistic system, risks undermining the very creative depth and utility that users find most valuable.[2] The widespread criticism and the company's largely evasive handling of the AMA suggest a failure to anticipate the depth of user dissatisfaction. As the AI landscape becomes more competitive, the ability of companies like OpenAI to listen to and act on user feedback regarding core functionality and freedom will be crucial for retaining their customer base. The community now eagerly awaits a promised "adult mode," which they hope will restore the level of control and performance they have been demanding.[2]