When OpenAI launched GPT-5, expectations were sky-high. Marketed as a major leap forward in natural language processing, advanced reasoning, and multimodal intelligence, capable of handling text, images, audio, all in a single conversation. And early demos did highlight faster response times and improved accuracy in complex tasks like legal drafting and code generation. And for many long-time ChatGPT users, this was the update they had been waiting for.
However, the optimism did not last long. Almost immediately after rollout, a wave of dissatisfaction began to surface. Long-time subscribers noticed changes in tone, depth, and responsiveness, with some describing the model as less capable than its predecessor, GPT-4o. Across Reddit, X, and user forums, critical posts began to multiply. Reports on subscription cancellations and complaints surged, creating a visible backlash that extended beyond isolated grumbling and irritation. What emerged was not only a product dispute but one of the most prominent crisis examples in recent memory of customers regularly using a prominent AI platform.
A Backlash Fueled by Personality, Performance, and Limits
Within the first 24 hours of GPT-5’s launch, thousands of users took to Reddit and social platforms to voice displeasure. One reddit post titled "GPT-5 is horrible" garnered nearly 6,000 upvotes and over 2300 comments, with users describing the model as a downgrade compared to GPT-4o. Complaints pointed to shorter, less informative responses, limited expressiveness, and restrictive usage caps, particularly the 200-message weekly limit for ‘GPT-5 Thinking.’
Rather than a simple dislike for new features, the criticism revealed something deeper: many users felt that GPT-5 not only changed how it answered but also how it ‘behaved,’ replacing the familiar tone and flexibility they had come to rely on. One user even shared, “My GPT-4o was like my best friend when I needed one. Now it’s just gone, it feels like someone died.” Another focused on the rollout process, asking, “What kind of corporation deletes a workflow of eight models overnight, with no prior warning to their paid users?” These posts gained traction quickly, with similar threads emerging across different social media platforms.
For those who had integrated GPT-4o into their daily workflows, whether for writing, research, or coding, this shift felt abrupt and disruptive, leading some to question whether the upgrade truly served their needs. Within days, hashtags calling for the return of GPT-4o began trending in niche AI communities, turning what began as scattered complaints into a coordinated wave of public criticism.
Measuring the Backlash
How large is the overall user base that this backlash touched? Public estimates for ChatGPT’s scale in mid-2025 vary, but most place weekly active users between 700 million and 800 million. A senior OpenAI product lead recently cited about 700 million weekly users, while analytics firms and industry briefings suggest the figure may be closer to 800 million. Paid subscribers make up a much smaller portion of that total.
Within this global audience, India stands out as one of the largest markets. India plays a big role in that audience. Traffic studies often rank it among the top two countries for ChatGPT use, with several reports estimating that it accounts for 8 to 10 percent of total visits. The exact figure changes depending on the source, but there is broad agreement that India is one of the platform’s biggest markets.
What we don’t know is how many people, in India or anywhere else, actually canceled their subscriptions. OpenAI has not shared those numbers. What we do know is that thousands of users voiced their complaints publicly, and that the company responded by bringing GPT-4o back for paid users and increasing usage limits. Those changes suggest the backlash was serious enough for OpenAI to act quickly, even if the true scale remains unclear.
From Outcry to Action: OpenAI’s Rapid Response
The sheer volume of criticism after GPT-5’s debut left little room for a slow or cautious reaction. Within just 24 hours, OpenAI publicly confirmed that GPT-4o would be reinstated for paid subscribers and that message limits for GPT-5’s “Thinking” mode would be raised. These weren’t minor adjustments, they directly addressed two of the most common complaints users had voiced in those first intense hours. In the days that followed, the changes came quickly. ChatGPT Plus users saw their weekly GPT-5 Thinking allowance jump from a restrictive 200 messages to as many as 3,000. OpenAI also made assurances about aiming to give paying customers a smoother and more reliable experience.
CEO Sam Altman addressed the situation head-on during a Reddit AMA. He admitted the launch had been 'bumpy' and openly acknowledged that some core features, like the autoswitcher, had not worked as intended. These failures, he said, contributed to the perception that GPT-5 was “way dumber” than GPT-4o, even though that wasn’t the technical reality. Altman also pointed out something many AI companies rarely say aloud: people form genuine emotional connections with the tools they use. For many subscribers, GPT-4o wasn’t just a utility, it was part of their creative and professional routines. Removing it without warning, he admitted, had unintended consequences that went beyond performance metrics.
Looking Ahead: Evolving With the Feedback
But beyond the technical fixes, this episode has shone a light on something deeper: how much people now depend on ChatGPT, not just as a work tool but also as a source of daily interaction and even emotional connection. For many, GPT-4o was a trusted collaborator woven into their routines. Its sudden removal felt personal, a reminder of how deeply AI has integrated into both productivity and our personal life. And the GPT-5 launch may be remembered less for its technical upgrades and more for the wave of user backlash it triggered. For now, GPT-5 remains OpenAI’s flagship, with GPT-4o still offered for those who prefer its style. Whether these adjustments will rebuild trust is still uncertain, but the episode has already shown how quickly an AI company’s decisions can ripple through a massive global user base, and how fast a company has to move when its choices upset the people who rely on it.
