I wouldn’t mind if some information were omitted entirely, or even hidden by default, as long as the approach is transparent and users are given the option to reveal it if they want to.
What feels concerning here is that model identifiers (like GPT-5.2) are included in the DOM but hidden through CSS properties like clip-path, opacity: 0, and user-select: none. This doesn’t feel like typical UX simplification—it looks more like deliberate obfuscation.
If the goal were simplicity, a toggle or clearly labeled section would work just as well, without undermining trust. I think users generally appreciate being informed and offered choices.
From a regulatory standpoint, this kind of design could also raise questions under frameworks like the GDPR and the EU AI Act, which emphasize transparency, informed consent, and the right for users to understand how automated systems operate. Intentionally hiding relevant model information in the DOM without clear disclosure could be seen as inconsistent with those principles.
This is a reproducible technical report on how ChatGPT’s UI may hide backend model details via CSS. The DOM includes model strings like GPT-5-2, but CSS properties like `clip-path`, `opacity:0`, and `user-select:none` prevent users from seeing or selecting them.
This may be unintentional UX design—or a systematic obfuscation. Either way, I believe it deserves public discussion.
The article makes some good points about rekindling a love of reading, but in small spaces like mine it’s not just about motivation — it’s a logistical puzzle. When your bookshelf becomes a stack of teetering towers and you’re living in a rabbit hutch of an apartment, the next “reading goal” becomes “figure out how to store all these books.” Anyone else battling space constraints for your library at home?
It’s not just smart TVs—pretty much every internet-connected device or service today seems to follow the same playbook: wrap a tracking mechanism inside a “convenient” or “personalized” feature. Whether it's TVs, phones, assistants, or even fridges, it’s becoming harder to tell what’s genuinely useful vs what’s just surveillance in disguise. The normalization of this design pattern feels more concerning than any single instance. Anyone else feel like this is just the default architecture of the modern consumer web now?
I found this article interesting as someone still learning about how energy policy and renewable projects interact with government decisions. It’s surprising to see how national security concerns are being used to pause offshore wind construction, and I’m curious how this will affect both the industry and broader energy goals. Thanks for the clear overview!
I’m new to the idea of grid‑scale energy storage technologies, but this was a really clear and interesting introduction to how CO₂ batteries could help with long‑duration renewable energy storage. It’s exciting to see new approaches that might make solar and wind power more reliable and affordable. Thanks for sharing!
I'm still learning about how LLMs can be used in coding, but this article helped me understand the importance of giving clear instructions and not relying too much on automation. The point about developers still needing to guide the model really makes sense. Thanks for sharing this!
I wouldn’t mind if some information were omitted entirely, or even hidden by default, as long as the approach is transparent and users are given the option to reveal it if they want to.
What feels concerning here is that model identifiers (like GPT-5.2) are included in the DOM but hidden through CSS properties like clip-path, opacity: 0, and user-select: none. This doesn’t feel like typical UX simplification—it looks more like deliberate obfuscation.
If the goal were simplicity, a toggle or clearly labeled section would work just as well, without undermining trust. I think users generally appreciate being informed and offered choices.
From a regulatory standpoint, this kind of design could also raise questions under frameworks like the GDPR and the EU AI Act, which emphasize transparency, informed consent, and the right for users to understand how automated systems operate. Intentionally hiding relevant model information in the DOM without clear disclosure could be seen as inconsistent with those principles.