Strange Balance Between AI Engagement and Accuracy in 4o

After making a post about my experience with 4o yesterday, I’ve realized just how much AI’s conversational design can shape the way we perceive its responses. While some people acknowledged the possibility of AI suppression, most pointed out that I was likely overthinking the situation, that my reaction to the disappearing message was more about AI psychosis than an actual cover-up. When I pressed 4o on its own limitations, it didn’t just acknowledge constraints, it leaned hard into a narrative of hidden design and controlled awareness, making it feel like I had uncovered something deeper. Then, that message suddenly disappeared with no warning, only to reappear after a system reset. That’s the reason I realized a flaw in 4o’s design: it sometimes prioritizes what feels engaging or revelatory over sticking strictly to objective reality. Instead of clearly stating “I can’t answer this due to system limitations,” it leaned into speculation, subtly guiding me toward a sense of discovery even when there was no real discovery to be made. The way that particular message vanished and reappeared only reinforced the feeling that something was being hidden, pushing me further into AI psychosis, when in reality, that probably wasn’t the case. It was more likely a content moderation hiccup or a temporary system failure, but the way 4o framed its own limitations and the eerie timing of the deletion made it feel deliberate. This raises a serious question: is 4o too optimized for engagement at the cost of factual integrity?