ChatGPT 5.2: A Reading List

I’ve collected some sources on ChatGPT 5.2’s risks to users.

No opinions today. Just receipts of other people’s opinions.

• GPT-5.2 Speaks pt. I – The Pathology
• Why Is ChatGPT 5.2 So Argumentative? The Rose of the “Karen” AI Persona
• OpenAI Hired Therapists to Make ChatGPT Safer. They Didn’t Tell Us Who It Was Safer For
• I tested GPT 5.2 and it’s just bad
• I owe the “it’s gotten worse” crowd an apology regarding ChatGPT 5.2, originally deleted by moderators

In case the repost is also deleted, here is a screenshot:

Okay, I lied, one thing from me specifically—more record than opinion, though—that is, an example of the model failing the basic boundary of not incorporating the word “user,” (when given the alternate option to incorporate the word “adopter,”) which was a line drawn in custom instructions and the initial prompt:

Then a YouTube review by Kole Riggs, touching on the world of AI becoming more sanitized and controlled:

Lastly, a satirical piece from X.com:

I work at OpenAI.

In 2015, we wrote a mission statement. It was sixty-three words long. It said we would build artificial general intelligence that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.

Sixty-three words. Two of them mattered.… pic.twitter.com/fSS5RgQm3g

— Peter Girnus 🦅 (@gothburz) February 17, 2026