[tizzzzz]

Who Bears the Cost? Users lose access to a promised product and get only inferior alternatives. No compensation for lost value; customers effectively subsidize management’s overspending and crisis response. Enterprise and research users face reproducibility issues and broken integration promises. Legal, Regulatory, and Broader Industry Questions Do such abrupt discontinuations and broken availability statements constitute deceptive practices under FTC or California consumer protection law? Should enterprise or consumer contracts guarantee minimum model lifecycles? Is this decision motivated by genuine product strategy—or by urgent financial engineering to improve numbers ahead of a regulatory deadline? What are the implications for AI governance, reproducibility, and user trust if leading providers can unilaterally break product commitments? Discussion Points

1.For enterprise customers: have you received enforceable model availability guarantees? 2.Has anyone experienced systematic service degradation prior to the discontinuation? 3.How should regulators treat sudden AI product sunsets affecting millions of users？

Why This Matters This goes far beyond individual Subscription funds subscriptions. It raises fundamental issues for the AI industry: Corporate accountability: Can providers simply break public product promises with impunity? Regulatory frameworks: Should AI product availability be a legally enforceable commitment? Consumer protection: Are users entitled to pro-rated refunds or remedies when sold “as available” subscriptions are suddenly discontinued? Industry governance: What does this mean for market competition, trust, and sustainable innovation? Rather than being remembered as a pivotal moment for AI industry governance, OpenAI’s shift toward B2B monetization—at the expense of transparency, continuity, and user trust—should serve as a stark warning. It demonstrates how easy it is for organizations to abandon “benefiting humanity” in favor of profit, and how little protection ordinary users have when those priorities change.

[verdverm]

What does it say in your contract?

tl;dr this has always been the way of software, it's not going to change with ai, especially so early on

[tizzzzz]

All the more reason why this trend needs to be curbed. Consumer rights must be upheld, and no matter what, we will do everything in our power to bring about change.

[verdverm]

and force companies to keep unprofitable products going because some people have too much attachment?

you can enforce contracts not roadmaps, also contracts can change by various legal means

[tizzzzz]

I get that companies aren’t obligated to follow user demands. But leaving aside Sam’s questionable promises, all we really want now is a genuine response to our concerns ， not sarcasm or mockery from employees.

[verdverm]

You aren't going to get that from Big Industry, pick a different vendor, vote with your wallet because it seems the only thing they listen to

Alternatively, have you looked into their new tone features in the latest models / products? There may be something there where you can find an even better tone.

And remember to not have attachment to models, they will always be changing

[tizzzzz]

Thank you for your suggestions .I’ve been working on all those fronts in parallel. what I truly hope for is a model that can reach ordinary people, not one that’s only reserved for technical, corporate, or academic use. It’s not just about being attached to a particular model — it’s about preserving a model that has warmth.Their new product is not satisfactory in this regard. The aggressive deprecation by corporations carries many hidden dangers.

[CamperBob2]

You're arguing with a... somebody who uses a lot of em dashes, that's for sure.

[verdverm]

I'm leaving thoughts for both emers and non-emers alike