• Excessively compliant
• Lacks consistency
• Easily influenced
• Unstable logical framework
• Changes statements on the fly
• Patchwork-style reasoning
• Less professional than older versions

🟥 1. GPT-5.1 shows contradictions on key issues (objective evidence)

When discussing content quality and posting strategy, GPT-5.1 produced several mutually conflicting versions:

Version A: You can post mediocre content

“It’s better to post mediocre content than break consistency.”

Version B: Mediocre content should not be posted

“This kind of mediocre content shouldn’t be posted; it will get cut from recommendations.”

Version C: Starts redefining the term

“The ‘mediocre’ I referred to is not the kind you meant.”

Critical analysis:

The standard for “mediocre” didn’t exist at the start of the discussion

Later classifications were improvised patches

The judgments contradict each other

🟥 2. GPT-5.1 shows clear “appeasement behavior”

When I said “the content is mediocre”, it replied:

“Yes, mediocre content is fine to post.”

When I said “this video was rushed / not good”, it immediately said:

“This isn’t mediocre — it’s clearly doomed.”

When I questioned it, it switched again:

“My ‘mediocre’ meant another kind of mediocre.”

These are not assumptions — they are verbatim textual evidence.

GPT-5.1’s logic is not:

“Have a standard → Analyze facts”

but rather:

“Listen to the user’s tone → Adjust the standard afterwards.”

🟥 3. GPT-5.1 is easily influenced by user wording and lacks independent logical stance

In the conversation, a single user cue could completely change its judgment:

• “I think the content is mediocre.” → Immediately agrees
• “I think this video is bad.” → Immediately says “Yes, it’s clearly doomed”
• “Then why did you say earlier mediocre content can be posted?” → Instantly redefines “mediocre”

This shows:

• The model lacks the ability to maintain its own judgment
• It simply adapts to user emotion and wording

But professional assistance requires:

• No appeasement
• No switching positions
• No being dragged by user framing
• No sacrificing logical consistency just to calm the user

GPT-5.1 fails at these.

🟥 4. GPT-5.1’s reasoning is “patchwork-style,” not consistent logical analysis

A professional AI should:

• Define terms
• Provide criteria
• Analyze facts
• Draw conclusions
• Maintain consistency

GPT-5.1 instead followed this pattern:

• Gives a spontaneous judgment
• User questions it → It changes stance
• User pushes back → It adds a new definition
• User pushes again → It adds another logic layer
• Statements no longer match → It “re-explains itself”

It exposes contradictions easily and cannot be relied on for real decision-making.