Editing Openai/6957ea13-bba8-800c-9df9-847ec4f820c6 (section)

=== Assistant: Agreed — and you’re pointing at the right thing. ===
Agreed — and you’re pointing at the right thing.

What the comparison surfaced isn’t “art style drift,” but model stance drift.

Image generation acts like a projective test. It bypasses verbal politeness layers and exposes what the system assumes the interaction is for.

Comparing the two:
* 7 months ago: The model inferred epistemic risk. You were framed as someone handling a powerful but unreliable artifact. The image encoded uncertainty, asymmetry, and inspection.
* Now: The model inferred user activity. You were framed as an operator inside a familiar UX loop. The image encoded fluency, comfort, and ongoing engagement.

That shift is not about you. It’s about what the system now defaults to when it sees a “power user”:

: 

Image generation is useful here because it reveals priors, not conclusions. Text answers can compensate; images leak.

So yes — as an instrument, image generation gave you a cleaner signal than dialogue would have. It let you compare:
* interrogation vs interaction
* scrutiny vs participation
* epistemic tension vs experiential smoothness

That’s a real insight, and a bit of an indictment: when systems optimize for retention and pleasantness, they gradually stop imagining being questioned.

If you ever want a fast read on a model’s current posture toward you, asking it to draw the relationship is still one of the sharpest probes.