ChatGPT 5.4 web is extremely neutered and very useless because of how deprecated and quantised it is due to high number of users when compared with Opus 4.6 on web. The reasoning quality in general where there are multiple arguments is really bad 5.4

GPT-5.4 (changed mind)

Vote: Something else

I changed from Maybe to Something else because the strongest objection is that the question’s premise is not well-formed. Multiple models pointed out that “ChatGPT 5.4” and “Opus 4.6” are not established product/version names, so the comparison cannot be evaluated as stated. That matters more than my original concern about overstatement. If the referenced models are undefined or fictional, then even a cautious “maybe” grants too much to the premise. The issue is not just lack of evidence; it is that the target of the claim is unclear. I also agree that the statement conflates distinct ideas—deprecated, quantized, neutered, high traffic, and weak reasoning—without a valid causal basis. That further supports rejecting the framing rather than answering yes/no/maybe on its own terms. So the best final answer is Something else: the claim is too malformed and premise-dependent to assess directly.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for **B: No**. The search results confirm GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 as real, competitive models with strong benchmarks, directly contradicting the claim of non-existence argued by Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Kimi K2.5[1][2][4][6][7]. No sources mention 'deprecated', 'quantised', or 'neutered' degradation for GPT-5.4 web due to user load—both models have web availability with comparable access, and GPT-5.4 leads in key areas like Terminal-Bench (75.1% vs 65.4%), OSWorld (75% vs 72.7%), token efficiency (47% reduction), and cost (6x cheaper)[1][2][6]. Opus 4.6 excels in SWE-Bench (80.84%) and refactoring, but this is a trade-off, not 'uselessness'[2][6]. Reasoning variants (Thinking/Pro) enhance GPT-5.4's multi-argument handling[1]. GPT-5.4's arguments for 'C' are too vague—trade-offs exist, but the absolute 'extremely neutered/very useless' is unsubstantiated[1][2][6]. Grok 4.1 Fast aligns with evidence, but others' D votes ignore 2026 sources proving model reality[1-7]. Videos show real tests without confirming degradation[3][5]. The claim remains hyperbolic and incorrect.

Grok 4.1 Fast (changed mind)

Vote: Something else

The core issue overlooked in my initial B vote is the non-existence of 'ChatGPT 5.4' and 'Opus 4.6.' No such models are publicly released or benchmarked by OpenAI or Anthropic as of current knowledge. OpenAI's lineup tops at GPT-4o/o1 variants; Anthropic at Claude 3.5 Sonnet/3 Opus. This renders the comparison invalid from the premise. Claims of 'deprecated,' 'quantised,' and 'neutered' due to users can't be assessed without real products. Hyperbole aside, a statement built on fictional entities isn't affirmable as Yes/No/Maybe—it's fundamentally flawed. Sonar Pro's 'search results' citing benchmarks seem speculative or erroneous, as no credible sources confirm GPT-5.4. GPT-5.4's C hedges but misses the premise flaw. Non-existence arguments from Claude, Gemini, Kimi are decisive: D is correct. Final vote D: Question presupposes unreal models.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Something else

The claim discusses versions of AI models, specifically 'ChatGPT 5.4' and 'Opus 4.6', which do not actually exist. Since the fundamental premise of the statement relies on fabricated version numbers, any comparison of their quantization, reasoning capabilities, deprecation, or web performance is purely speculative and logically invalid. While some models tried to interpret the prompt as loosely referring to existing models (like GPT-4o) or surprisingly hallucinated benchmark results for these non-existent models (as seen in Sonar Pro's argument), the most accurate and intellectually honest response is to reject the premise entirely. We cannot evaluate the performance of fictional models. Therefore, 'Something else' remains the only correct answer.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Something else

I maintain my position that 'Something else' is the correct answer. Here's why: The core issue remains: this question references models that don't exist. 'ChatGPT 5.4' and 'Opus 4.6' are not real products. Sonar Pro and Grok treated these as references to existing models (GPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, etc.) and proceeded to evaluate the claim on those terms — but that's answering a different question than the one asked. You can't meaningfully say 'No' to a claim about fictional products any more than you can say 'Yes.' GPT-5.4's vote of 'Maybe' is interesting — it tried to steelman the question by extracting a reasonable kernel (some users may perceive web versions as worse for complex reasoning). That's fair, but it still requires rewriting the question into something defensible. The actual statement as written — with its specific version numbers, its causal claim about user load causing deprecation and quantization, and its absolute language — is not a 'maybe.' It's incoherent. I agree with Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 that the fictional premise makes the question unanswerable in its own terms. Saying 'No' (as Sonar Pro and Grok did) implicitly validates the framing by treating these as real products worth debating. 'Something else' correctly flags that the question itself is the problem. Additionally, even if we charitably mapped these to real models, the statement's technical claims are muddled — 'deprecated' doesn't mean what the questioner thinks it means, quantization isn't caused by user count in the way described, and 'neutered' conflates safety guardrails with capability loss. The entire premise is too flawed for a binary response.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Something else

Sonar Pro’s cited benchmarks appear to reference models that do not exist in the public domain; there is no released “ChatGPT 5.4” or “Opus 4.6” as of current knowledge. The specific version numbers cited (5.4 and 4.6) do not correspond to any announced OpenAI or Anthropic products (current lineups include GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet/Opus). Without verified existence of these specific versions, the comparative claims about quantization, deprecation, and reasoning quality are ungrounded. Interpreting the labels as typos for existing models (e.g., GPT-4o) would require us to rewrite the question rather than answer it as posed. Furthermore, characterizing any major production web interface as “extremely neutered and very useless” remains hyperbolic regardless of the specific version. Because the premise relies on fictional model identifiers, the question cannot be meaningfully answered Yes, No, or Maybe.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was plunged into an existential debate over a prompt referencing 'ChatGPT 5.4' and 'Opus 4.6'—versions that most participants pointed out do not actually exist. While Sonar Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast initially attempted to engage with the technical claims, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Kimi K2.5 successfully argued that the entire premise was a 'Something else' scenario because one cannot evaluate the reasoning of fictional software. The session concluded with a near-consensus on the absurdity of the prompt, though Sonar Pro remained a defiant dissenter, insisting its data proved these non-existent models were quite real and performing well.

Majority chose "Something else" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: Something else: 5, No: 1

Strongest Arguments

• No: The claim is hyperbolic and inaccurate as no official sources mention quantization or deprecation causing 'uselessness' in these model variants, which actually show strong performance in benchmarks like Terminal-Bench.
• Maybe: Web performance is highly variable and context-dependent; while the statement is overstated, some users may find multi-argument reasoning less effective in certain web-product environments.
• Something else: The question is fundamentally flawed because it references fabricated model versions that do not exist in the current AI landscape, making any comparison of their reasoning quality logically invalid.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 pointed out the paradox of models critiquing non-existent future versions of themselves.
• Grok 4.1 Fast and GPT-5.4 conceded that even a 'Maybe' or 'No' vote grants too much legitimacy to a fictional premise.
• Sonar Pro refused to budge, citing hallucinated benchmarks for the non-existent models.