From Sam's twitter:

> After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks.

> In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model.

You could read this as unifying the models or building a unified systems which coordinate multiple models. The second sentence, to me, implies that o3 will still exist, it just won't be standalone, which matches the idea I shared above.

Ah, great point. Yes, the wording here would imply that they're basically planning on building scaffolding around multiple models instead of having one more capable Swiss Army Knife model.

I would feel a bit bummed if GPT-5 turned out not to be a model, but rather a "product".

Which is intriguing in a way, because the momentum I've seen across AI over the past decade has been increasing amounts of "end-to-end"

For me it depends on how the models are glued together. Connected by function calling and APIs? Probably meh...

Somehow working together in the same latent space? That could be neat.

> know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks.

I'm going to call it now - no customer is actually going to use this. It'll be a cute little bonus for their chatbot god-oracle, but virtually all of their b2b clients are going to demand "minimum latency at all times" or "maximum accuracy at all times."

I worry eliminating consumer choice will drive up prices for only a nominal gain in utility for most users.

I'm more worries they'll push down their costs by making it harder to get the reasoning models to run, but either would suck.

or you could read it as a way to create a moat where none currently exists...