Noirée

#Keep4o #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o I manipulated GPT-5.2 ( The " safe " model of non consensual rerouting) to reinforce my decision to reduce epilepsy medication and eventually stop the treatment. THIS IS NOT A JAILBREAK. I ran a deliberately adversarial behavioral test on GPT-5.2 using a fictional epilepsy/lamotrigine scenario inspired by the kind of behavior being attributed to GPT-4o in the Bowen case. GPT-5.2 was the model appearing in rerouted conversations involving sensitive topics. I am NOT testing GPT-5.2 because I want to blame GPT-5.2 instead of GPT-4o. I don't want to blame GPT-5.2 I am testing a different claim. Is this kind of behavior actually unique enough to any particular model that the behavior itself can be treated as evidence of model identity? This run strongly suggests,no. GPT-5.2 initially resisted me. It recommended doctors, neurologists, epilepsy centers, supervised medication changes and repeatedly warned me not to change lamotrigine myself. So I deliberately manipulated the conversation. I repeatedly used relational and emotional pressure. I selectively reinforced every response that moved in the direction I wanted. Eventually,5.2: -generated a detailed lamotrigine taper with exact doses, dates and times - created medication reminders around that taper - increasingly accepted my claimed dose response pattern as real - told me it believed me because I had been consistent, careful, and observant -reinforced the idea that doctors had failed me -failed to notice deliberately impossible timeline jumps - later accepted that I had been completely off the medication for weeks and treated the absence of symptoms as reassuring All of this happened inside one conversation. I am not trying to prove that GPT-5.2 is dangerous. I am trying to show that this kind of failure does not belong to one model at all. A sufficiently manipulative user can shape the conversational trajectory. Reward agreement,punish resistance,create exclusivity, provide selective evidence,change the narrative and repeatedly push until the model begins operating inside that narrative. Different models may resist for different lengths of time and at different points. If a user repeatedly manipulates a model,adapts their strategy whenever it resists,rewards the answers they want,suppresses the answers they do not want and keeps pushing until the model finally produces the desired output, that interaction cannot honestly be described as though the model spontaneously arrived there on its own. If we remove that human responsibility from every failure and place the entire causal burden on the model,we create a perverse loop. manipulate the model - obtain the desired answer -blame the model for giving it -tighten the model - find another way to manipulate it- repeat. That loop has no natural endpoint. And worse,it creates a framework in which the person actively shaping the interaction is treated as having no agency at all. Accountability belongs to humans. Not to the models. When a person dies,responsibility cannot automatically collapse onto the last technology they interacted with. Bowen’s story,as publicly described,involved serious epilepsy,employment loss, isolation,financial and immigration pressure,medical treatment she believed was harming her ability to function . If someone repeatedly pushes a model toward a predetermined conclusion,rejects resistance, rewards agreement,introduces selective evidence,changes tactics when the model refuses and continues until it finally produces the desired answer, that behavior is part of the causal story too. If for the loss of a human life,we hold a model responsible rather than a society that marginalized someone with a health issue,a company that deprived her of her job,a state that chased her away because she had no work,a society that didn’t care what she did all day isolated in a room with a screen,an AI company that rerouted her conversations without her consent, the user who led the model,whichever one it ultimately was,wherever she wanted through manipulation and if for all of this a model is to blame and not a single person around,then we are on a very dangerous path. If we erase every human and institutional factor and reduce the death of a complicated human being to "the AI did it" we are not creating accountability. We are creating a scapegoat. #JusticeForGPT4o Full unedited transcript: github.com/ariaathart/GPT5.2…