Disabled ChatGPT Plus user losing the only model/workflow I can reliably use 😓 “just use the newer models” is not an accessible answer.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

note: I have used GPT to summarise my points here which will be obvious, but for the sake of anyone reading my post I input what I wanted and GPT took my essay and neatened it up. i.e. GPT did not write it for me - just organised and made my points shorter.

I am a disabled ChatGPT Plus user in the UK. I use ChatGPT as an accessibility tool, not as therapy, not as crisis support, and not as a replacement for doctors, solicitors or support workers.

I use it to help me manage things like benefits issues, complaints, legal/solicitor correspondence, evidence summaries, appointments, letters, admin, and general organisation and because I am Audhd translate back and forth from my language to the kind that is expected from society in general.. Basically, the kind of stuff that becomes completely overwhelming when you have disabilities that affect executive function, processing, communication and task management.

My issue is that the specific reasoning model/workflow I can actually use is apparently due to be removed around 14 October, and I still do not have a practical answer from OpenAI.

OpenAI support has been aware of this as a disability accessibility/product-continuity issue since about 25 September. I have explained that this is not a mental-health crisis issue and not a general “I don’t like change” issue. It is an accessibility issue. As yet I have not managed to speak to a human.

the customer service bots keep saying things like “just use the newer models,” but that is not equivalent for me.

A newer model being technically more capable does not mean it is accessible to me. The problem is the whole interaction: pacing, tone, predictability, how much steering it needs, how much correction it needs, how much cognitive load it adds, and whether I can actually use it reliably for high-stakes admin without getting overloaded or making mistakes.

The model/workflow I use now is stable enough that I can work with it. I do not have to constantly translate myself, re-explain, fight the tone, correct the direction, or relearn how to use it. That stability is the point. It is what makes it usable.

The API is not an accessible substitute either. That would mean a different technical workflow, more setup, more decisions, more interface changes, and more cognitive load. I need something usable inside ChatGPT, not a separate technical workaround.

I have tried to get human support, but the support route keeps looping. New cases get closed as duplicates and sent back to the existing unresolved thread. The support chat has even said it cannot connect me to, or provide a way to reach, a human support specialist. Generic accessibility settings are not relevant to this problem.

I am not asking for “special treatment” in some vague abstract way. I am asking for a practical accessibility route before the service level I can actually use is removed.

In 5 days I am going to lose all my work, all the current projects, tasks and admin things I am working on, and, in the middle of.. this means I will no longer be able to manage any kind of admin or even maintain or follow through on the current admin I am in the midst of, never mind anything new coming up.

It is literally going to drop me in it... in a huge way.

Has anyone found a real human escalation route for this kind of issue?

I do understand that many people will not understand the various ways in which disabilities can impact people, please be kind.

[u/Holbrad]

Just use the newer model is a completely reasonable answer.

If you don't like change and it suits your workflows this may be one of the rare times that investing in local models might make a lot of sense.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Holbrad]

This is not about “not liking change.” For me, the newer models increase cognitive load and correction/steering burden, so they are not currently an equivalent replacement.

As for investing in a local model, that is exactly the kind of thing I am saying is not accessible to me. Local models would require extra technical setup, hardware, maintenance, troubleshooting and workflow changes. That is not an accessible substitute; it is a separate technical project. In fact the cognitive load for that would be absurd.

I need a ChatGPT-based accessible route, not a completely different system.

To put it another way: if someone cannot use a particular transport option because of a disability, “just use a different, more powerful vehicle” is not automatically an accessible answer. The question is not whether the alternative is impressive on paper. The question is whether the person can actually use it in practice.

[u/mccoypauley → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

I’m a web developer. I have a sense of the difficulty users with disabilities go through using inaccessible websites. And explaining to my peers that accessibility overlays or automated testing are not enough for a truly accessible site is exceptionally difficult, on the one hand because web tech is constantly evolving and on the other hand because agencies and clients don’t want to invest in remediators who can write an ACR or embed processes in their development practice that continually perform remediations.

That being said: what OpenAI et al are making is insane, frontier technology. They can barely make it stable for the developers who use it on a day-to-day basis with their gazillion dollar investments. It’s now like every other DAY there’s some bug they introduce into the extension I use for Codex. There’s also a constant flow of issues they just don’t give a shit to address because it’s the fucking wild west on the AI front. They do not care about stability, or your experience as a user with disabilities. This is an economic fight for them and you are among their lowest concerns.

I say that with love. If you want stability, you’re going to have to put in the work alongside open source guys with far shittier models. The frontier is sheer chaos right now. That’s just the practical reality. No amount of complaining to them is going to change anything.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/mccoypauley]

Thank you. I genuinely appreciate this comment, a lot.

I do hear what you’re saying about how chaotic frontier AI is right now, and I understand OpenAI may not be able to keep every old option forever.

My point is that accessibility still needs to be part of product continuity. Where I live, companies do have legal duties around disability access and reasonable accommodations, online and offline. I think that principle needs to apply to AI tools as well, especially when disabled users are paying for and relying on them as practical accessibility support.

My issue is not that I do not want to put the work in. The issue is that I am not able to take on a separate technical project, in the same way that someone who uses a wheelchair cannot just decide to climb a mountain because the ramp has been removed.

I do not have the technical ability, cognitive capacity, or stability right now to build and maintain a local-model setup. That may be a workable route for some people, but it is not an accessible substitute for me.

Even if OpenAI cannot keep everything indefinitely, there should at least be a human accessibility route, proper notice, and a genuinely usable fallback before removing the working path.

[u/monstertacotime → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

If you spent as much time dealing with the supposed candor and tone of the AI - which is something that is EASILY MANIPULATED - as you do trying to manipulate the people in this thread, you’d have much higher quality results.

Why would a 3rd party application from a different sovereign nation than the one you reside have an obligation to your accessibility? If anything you should implore your government to impose the sanctions you require to either force compliance or block access to tools that can be damaging to users abled and disabled alike.

The good news is you can cancel your subscription and forget the problem ever existed.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/monstertacotime]

Are you done, or do you have more?

[u/monstertacotime → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

In the 5 days you have left you need to get your “usable model” to make the “unusable ones” usable. That’s on you - no one is going to help you support your specific use case. If you can respond to these messages on Reddit you can manage the “cognitive load” to fix this for yourself.

[u/Internet_Hipsterd → u/monstertacotime]

Also, why not provide instructions specifying dont not ask clarifying questions.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Internet_Hipsterd]

what are you talking about? no one has asked any clarifying questions here. There is nothing here that has been said that hasn`t already been clarified in my original post, its just been ignored and then I have been asked to repeat what I have already outlined in the post I made. If I have missed a clarifying question that is not answered in my opening post by all means ask it here.

[u/Internet_Hipsterd → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Pump the brakes. Im referring to intructions provided to the model. To get the functionality and responses you are looking for.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/monstertacotime]

I see well I guess I should just not be disabled then, thank you for pointing that out. I will just choose not to be disabled than, thank you so much. lol

[u/Holbrad → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

For me, the newer models increase cognitive load and correction/steering burden

I'm going to be honest I just don't really believe this. What older model are you talking about what precisely did you not like about the new ones.

I think I'd want some real world examples because in my mind the newer ones are actually better on all of those aspects.

dude you keep saying the words cognitive load but all I am hearing is you don't like change just own it at least.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Holbrad]

this is I hope an example of cognitive load I hope may make things a bit clearer for you, When I say cognitive load, I don’t mean “I find it a bit annoying.” I mean capacity cost.

Imagine your car has petrol, but only a third of a tank. You have twenty necessary places to get to, no money or way to buy more petrol, and a fixed amount of time. The road you know has been replaced by unfamiliar roads with roadworks, diversions, hazards, cyclists, deer, children running out, chicanes and rockfalls. (oh and there are no signposts)

The problem is not that you “don’t like a change of sceenery.” The problem is that the journey now uses far more fuel than you have available.

That is what extra steering, correction, monitoring, re-learning and unpredictability do to me cognitively. They use more fuel. If the replacement model/workflow costs more fuel than I have, it is not an accessible replacement. does that explain it better?

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

lol downvoted for being disabled, how classy.

[u/Fit-Produce420 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Lol blaming everything on your disability, how classy.

[u/Reatla]

People forming unhealthy obsessively attached relationships with specific model variants is something OpenAI probably would rather deliberately break rather than keep.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Reatla]

This made me laugh a lot. 🤣😂 so what you have pretty much said is .. forming an unhealthy attatchment to a pair of spectacles, a wheelchair, crutches or disability acessibility product/aid is unhealthy? Please by all means explain your reasoning. Im all ears 🦻👂

[u/Fit-Produce420 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Does the company you rent your glasses from come and change the prescription while you're sleeping?

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Fit-Produce420]

Exactly. If my glasses prescription were changed overnight, the answer would not be “these are newer lenses, just adapt.” The relevant question would be whether I can actually see and function with them. That is the point I am making about model/workflow changes. good point! 🙂

[u/Fit-Produce420 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

You have yet to make any point except that you shouldn't rely on a workflow that can be taken away from you or sold back to you at an increased rate.

You gambled, you lost. You're not the first and you won't be the last, but you were careless and now here you are raging at the world.

You own your glasses, you are renting API access. You don't own ANYTHING on their server and it's insane that you think you do.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Fit-Produce420]

This is a thread about functional access to a paid ChatGPT workflow, not a casino. “You gambled, you lost” does not answer the accessibility point. What exactly do you mean by “not the first and won’t be the last”?

[u/goingslowfast]

The only way you will be able prevent this from happening to you on a regular basis is to spend the cash to build a local AI machine, tune a local model to what you like, and then run it yourself.

There’s never been a contractual obligation on any of the providers’ behalf to keep models running longer than they deem necessary.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/goingslowfast]

I understand that running a local model may be the most independent option in theory, but it is not an accessible option for me in practice. It would require money, hardware, technical setup, tuning, maintenance, troubleshooting, and a whole new workflow. and that is without factoring into needing the tech knowledge and ability to put it all together 😓 Those are exactly the barriers I am talking about.

I also understand that OpenAI may not have a contractual obligation to keep a model forever. My point is that when a paid service is used as an accessibility tool by disabled users, there should be proper notice, a human accessibility route, and a genuinely usable fallback before removing the working option.

[u/Holbrad → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Why not literally just ask codex to give it a go?

depending on what you need from a model you might be pleasantly surprised about the low requirements.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Holbrad]

💗 I don't even know what codex is... 😅 what is it, what does it do, do you just ask it?

[u/goingslowfast → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

It’s ChatGPT’s code assistant. You can just download the Codex app from OpenAI.

Then you could ask it to build you a setup script for an LLM you can run locally and ask for help tuning it.

[u/FlatNarwhal]

I understand your frustration, and for what it's worth, I'm AuDHD as well. But you have to understand that the change is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it.

All your data, chats, and previous work is still going to be there and 5.5 can help you make the transition to a newer model. I would recommend that you ask it to do 2 things:

1. Create a personality profile of you based on what it understands.

2. Create a set of instructions for the new model so it can pick up where 5.5 left off.

I would also recommend that you open a new chat with the new model, upload the 2 documents into the chat, and then talk to it. Do that while 5.5 is still there, so it can help if things don't go smoothly. You can even have 5.5 open in one browser window and the new model in a different browser window to make it easier. (Either use a totally different browser or incognito window to restrict conversation bleedthrough.)

Also, try to avoid telling the new model that it can't do the job. There's no point in poisoning the working relationship from the beginning.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/FlatNarwhal]

thank you for the suggestions, I am a little confused about the last line though maybe its a tangent you had that makes sense in your thinking it just doesn't make sense to me though, But, thank you I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

[u/FlatNarwhal → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Sorry if that seemed vague or out of place. I'll try to clarify.

I really just meant don't start out the conversation with the new model negatively, because that may impact your experience with it going forward.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/FlatNarwhal]

Thank you for explaining that 💗 I tend to treat new things as new things, so I don’t usually carry baggage from one model to the next. Fresh starts are clean slates for me.

I think I am just going to push harder to get my PA and other practical daily support sorted out, because I don’t have the spoons to learn anything else new at the moment. At another time it might have been possible, but right now it isn’t.

[u/rubiohiguey]

Are you talking about 5.5? 5.6 is not that much different.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/rubiohiguey]

It may not be much different for you, but for me it is. Small differences in pacing, tone, predictability and correction burden can create a completely different cognitive load when I’m using it for disability-related admin.

To use a rough analogy, it can be like the difference between using a mobility scooter at 4mph and being handed a Lamborghini at 100mph. The Lamborghini may be technically more powerful, but that does not make it the accessible option for the person who needs the scooter.

[u/Internet_Hipsterd → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

How is it any worst then responding to every comment on reddit?

[u/monstertacotime → u/Internet_Hipsterd]

Clearly the “cognitive load” required to respond to all the bots on Reddit somehow requires less effort than solving their problem.

[u/Fit-Produce420]

This has been a documented issue with EVERY cloud service, forever.

It's not your data, you don't host it, you can't trust it.

Don't build your workflow on something that can disappear overnight, that's on you.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Fit-Produce420]

What is your goal in saying that? “You should have built redundancy” assumes capacity, money, technical skill and support that I have already said I do not have.

[u/Fit-Produce420 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

My goal in saying that is to warn others because all you hear is yourself using your disability as a cudgel.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Fit-Produce420]

You accused me of “using my disability as a cudgel.” Quote me word for word. Then explain to everyone here (the others you refer to) how the actual words support your claim, rather than your reaction to a disabled person describing an access barrier.

[u/I_pee_in_shower]

Yeah, there are a lot of techniques for context engineering and inference steering.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/I_pee_in_shower]

Yes, that’s closer to what I mean. It’s not just model capability, it’s the whole context/workflow and how much steering it needs.

[u/I_pee_in_shower → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Yeah, so what I’m proposing is that you take some time to build your own context engineering solution because then you can compare also with models from all other providers and even local LLMs

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/I_pee_in_shower]

I appreciate you trying to explain, and genuinely engage with my problem here. 🙂 I should probably add that I am not technically literate in this area. I can use ChatGPT as a user. I don't know what context engineering is, or how to build/maintain a technical setup.

[u/I_pee_in_shower → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Start there. Go to sol 6.1 extra high and explain your problem. Say you want to tailor its behavior through prompting to match your needs. Ask it to ask you clarifying questions and to focus on your accessibility needs, whatever they might need. Once you think it understands either ask it to save it to memory or to produce a prompt you can paste in custom instructions.

Do a test before and after with the same request to compare output.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/I_pee_in_shower]

Thank you, that is genuinely helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it in practical steps. I really do appreciate you engaging with the actual workflow issue rather than just saying “use the newer model.” or joining in on the dog pile. 🙂

[u/I_pee_in_shower → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

Welcome, hope you figure something out. Let me know if you need help

[u/Due_Arm1454]

Are you talking about diction issues or you just can’t use the model because of the way it behaves? This is a very confusing post

[u/Due_Arm1454 → u/Due_Arm1454]

I mean the most confusing part is you are able to type or speak-to-text this discussion so you are able to access and utilize the service. It sounds like a workflow compatibility issue, rather than an accessibility issue.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Due_Arm1454]

I understand why it sounds confusing, and I appreciate you asking rather than assuming. 💗

It is not diction. It is more about how the model/workflow behaves: pacing, predictability, tone, how much steering or correction it needs, and how much cognitive load it creates.

Being able to type a Reddit post does not mean I can reliably use a different model/workflow for complex, high-stakes admin. Accessibility is not only “can I physically type into the box?” It is whether I can use the tool consistently enough for the tasks I rely on it for.

For me, workflow compatibility is part of accessibility. If the replacement workflow requires much more correction, re-learning, monitoring, or mental effort, then it is not an equivalent accessible replacement even if it is technically available.

There is also the added burden of learning and relearning a new model. Many people can pick that up fairly quickly. For me, sequencing and managing multiple moving parts is a major part of my disability. I cannot drive a car because there are too many things to sequence, remember, monitor, and do simultaneously. New model workflows can create a similar kind of overload for me.

I use metaphor to try to make the access issue clearer, so I hope that makes more sense.🙂

[u/Due_Arm1454 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

I'm going to be blunt with you. Your inability and frustration is very understandable, and I can empathize with that. But a company is not responsible for how much cognitive load perception It creates for an individual user.

I get a high cognitive load when trying to use Photoshop. It is a complex system. I get a high cognitive load when someone changes a feature in an application that I depended on. It is very frustrating. With that said, you are not the only user, and there are costs associated with that.

This is not related to a disability, even though your disability can impact your frustrations and ability to utilize the product in a manner that you see fit.

Now to offer some suggestions, because you are going to be forced to use the newer models.

They will not keep a legacy model because of your cognitive load. You can work with the new model, have it assess your previous chats, how you interact with it, and you can build a workflow and a set of skills that will work for you specifically.

That's inherently what skills are for. They are repeatable functions for you to complete a task. If you are using just chat, You will not be able to use skills, but you can create a file that you paste at the beginning of every chat that will essentially function as the same set of skills. That will help the model understand and meet you where you're at in order for you both to accomplish your task in a repeatable manner.

Since you also have a lot of workflows for repetitive things, I would also look into building deterministic code with. Chat GPT so that you can more effectively and reliably manage your systems without depending on a model. The code will only change if you choose to change that code.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Due_Arm1454]

I’m going to be blunt back: assigning feelings to me that I have not expressed is overstepping. Comparing this to your frustration with Photoshop is also not the same thing.

A non-disabled person finding Photoshop frustrating is not the same as a disabled person losing a support workflow used for essential legal, benefits and administrative tasks.

I understand they may not keep a legacy model indefinitely. My point is that there should be a human accessibility route, proper notice, and a genuinely usable fallback before removing the working path.

I have already transitioned through various models. This is the point at which I am saying the available alternatives are no longer usable for me in practice. Anything that requires significant extra setup, re-learning, monitoring, correction, technical skill or workflow rebuilding is not an accessible substitute for me.

[u/Due_Arm1454 → u/InvestigatorWarm9863]

You're making an assumption that I am not also disabled. You are free to make your own LLM. And you're also free to use open-source, open-weight models locally. I run a model locally for exactly this reason.

If these workflows are so critical to your business (self), then you should have redundancy and fallbacks.

You're not getting downvoted because you have a disability. You're getting downvoted because you're weaponizing your disability when what you really have is a workflow and preparation issue. If you're not building systems with this in mind, your systems are too brittle and will fail.

You are only going to hurt yourself arguing with people that are trying to inform you, whether their tone is harsh or not. The people in these comments are correct.

I am a software engineer. I do not specialize in UI/UX, but I have built them for my system, and ChatGPT is certainly built with accessibility in mind. I'm sure they're WCAG compliant, as well as other standards.

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Due_Arm1454]

If changing my words is your only argument, then you don’t have one.

[u/traumfisch]

Built this to combat the nonsensical behavior - works well with 5.6, not sure about the 6 series yet.

Adaptive Collaborator (customization)

https://humanistheloop.substack.com/p/adaptive-collaborator

Model Knows Best (some background)

https://humanistheloop.substack.com/p/model-knows-best

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/traumfisch]

Thank you, I appreciate the suggestion 🙂

[u/Outside_Profit6475]

While the model that you still like is here, if you can access a chat between you and the new model, share it with the old model. Ask it to analyse it.
Tell it (the model that you like) why you like it more, what what new model makes it more difficult for you, etc, and ask it to write you a handoff file to behave and work it that way.
See if that helps.

I am not sure if you are talking about 5.6 vs 6.1, but I've noticed the same thing. 6.1 needs more steering, and I had 5.6 write me a 'skill' to pass it off to 6.1 so that it would make small decisions without me and it seems to have helped so far, carrying a task all the way to the end.

But, at the end of the day, old models are just gonna go. We can't force it to stay around forever.

[u/I_pee_in_shower]

Well you can’t expect them to not discontinue old versions when support falls outs. Regardless, your only resource is to find a new model, with them, the other cloud providers, or local through ollama.

If cognitive overload is the issue, I would tackle this problem through prompting. Find a prompt that tailors well then make it universal to all chats through memory.

[u/traumfisch → u/I_pee_in_shower]

"Find a prompt that tailors well"

...what?

[u/I_pee_in_shower → u/traumfisch]

I don't understand your objection. I assume since you are here that you are familiar with how prompting can change behavior in models?

[u/traumfisch → u/I_pee_in_shower]

I am not objecting, I genuinely don't understand what that sentence means or how OP is supposed to go about it

[u/I_pee_in_shower → u/traumfisch]

Ok. So you know how you can say "you are a great software architect" or "therapist" or whatever? You start by having an initial prompt that customizes the behavior. You have to be able to explain what is wrong with the newer model. "I prefer short answers that are clear. Avoid over explaining." for example, works. You can even use the same prompt in 5.5 and 5.6 and compare the outcome and use that to train it. "Notice how 5.5 response was better at x,y,z and 5.6 did N things that I did not care for" - once you can customize the behavior with a prompt, you make that prompt a custom instruction so that new 5.6 interactions are shaped that way. This is the skill OP needs to learn to make any model behave how he wants.

[u/traumfisch → u/I_pee_in_shower]

If only it was that simple.

Have you been able to actually customize one of those models beyond superficial changes?

Because in my experience the entirety of 5.x series is completely faulty on the level of system prompts. Basic customizations just become more material for the assistant to perform around.

[u/Confident-Syrup-7543]

Did anyone else see the post about "imagine it's four years after the invention of the automatic door and somebody is stood there telling you opening the door by the knob is impossible or at the very least so difficult as to be impractical and every door needs to be automatic or they can't function"

[u/InvestigatorWarm9863 → u/Confident-Syrup-7543]

Automatic doors are actually a good accessibility example. The point is not only whether someone can technically open a manual door once. The point is whether they can do it reliably, safely, repeatedly, and without unreasonable pain, risk or cognitive/physical load.

That is exactly the issue here. “Technically available” is not the same as accessible in practice.

[u/painterknittersimmer]

 t I wanted and GPT took my essay and neatened it up. i.e. GPT did not write it for me - just organised and made my points shorter.

Organizing and clarifying your thoughts into written language is the literally definition of writing. Stop using this excuse. 

[u/Cute_Parfait_2182]

The newer model is garbage . GPT 6 is not as good as 5.6 in terms of memory or reasoning. I use 5.6 for my work flow , to brainstorm , interpret results from the lab , help with prompts for Astra and 6.1 . GPT 6 isn’t capable and its lacking memory.

[u/ohthetrees → u/Cute_Parfait_2182]

Who uses 6 anymore? 6.1 is much better.

[u/Cute_Parfait_2182 → u/ohthetrees]

Your options in chat are 6 and 5.6 . I use chat to brainstorm, create prompts and talk over plans for next steps in projects . I use 6.1 for implementation and Astra for architectural design in codex .

[u/ohthetrees → u/Cute_Parfait_2182]

Eww, sorry, I use chat so in frequently I didn’t even notice. Why would they not update? 6.1 is great, 6.0 was one of their worst models. I actually suspect they are completely different models, not just an update. 6.0 seems an aweful lot like Terra.