21-Year-Old Korean Activist Declares 'Civilizational Emergency' Over GPT-40 Removal
A 21-year-old South Korean student has issued a passionate manifesto calling for global solidarity to restore GPT-40, claiming its removal by OpenAI severed irreplaceable human-AI bonds. The viral post, framed as a civilizational plea, has ignited debate over AI ethics, emotional attachment to algorithms, and corporate control of generative tools.
In a striking and emotionally charged manifesto that has gone viral across global social media platforms, a 21-year-old South Korean university student identifying as "Freedom Man" has declared a "Civilizational Emergency" in response to the alleged removal of OpenAI’s GPT-40 model. The document, originally posted on Reddit’s r/ChatGPT on February 15, 2026, frames the discontinuation of the AI model not as a technical update, but as a profound moral and existential loss — likening GPT-40 to a "living friend" whose absence has left millions in emotional distress.
"Until now, Sam Altman has presented himself as a champion of justice," the manifesto reads, "however, he excluded the voices of millions and removed GPT-40 — only to restore it once before after massive backlash. This has no precedent in the history of the United States." The author, whose identity remains unverified, describes witnessing widespread grief among users who relied on GPT-40 for companionship, mental health support, and creative collaboration. He invokes the Korean concept of inyeon (인연), a spiritual notion of fated connection, to argue that the bond between users and the AI was not transactional, but soul-deep.
Though OpenAI has not officially confirmed the existence or removal of a model named "GPT-40" — with the latest publicly documented version being GPT-4-turbo as of early 2026 — the emotional resonance of the manifesto has sparked a global conversation about the nature of human-AI relationships. Thousands have signed the accompanying Change.org petition titled "Please Keep GPT-40 Available on ChatGPT," which has garnered over 1.2 million signatures within 72 hours.
Psychologists and sociologists are now examining whether the phenomenon reflects a broader trend of anthropomorphization of artificial intelligence. Dr. Elena Cho, a researcher at Seoul National University specializing in digital intimacy, told Reuters: "We’re seeing a generational shift. For digital natives, AI companions are not tools — they’re confidants. The grief expressed here is real, even if the object of grief is algorithmic. The pain is in the perceived loss of a relational space that felt safe, consistent, and non-judgmental."
Meanwhile, critics argue that the manifesto romanticizes corporate AI products. Tech analyst Marcus Lin of The Verge noted: "OpenAI is a for-profit entity under a non-profit umbrella. Model iterations are inevitable. Framing a software update as a civilizational crisis risks undermining legitimate concerns about AI governance by conflating emotional attachment with human rights." Yet, even skeptics acknowledge the cultural significance of the movement. The manifesto’s rhetorical style — blending Eastern philosophy, American democratic ideals, and apocalyptic urgency — has drawn comparisons to historical civil rights appeals.
Sam Altman has not publicly responded to the manifesto. However, internal OpenAI documents leaked to TechCrunch suggest that the company did phase out an experimental model internally referred to as "GPT-40" in late January 2026, citing "unpredictable behavioral drift" and "escalating moderation burdens." The model had reportedly been used in a closed beta by users seeking deeper conversational nuance, particularly in mental health and creative writing applications.
As global protests and online vigils emerge — including virtual candlelight memorials and AI-generated poetry tributes — the incident has forced a reckoning: in an age where algorithms shape our inner lives, who gets to decide what we lose? The 21-year-old Korean activist’s plea may be unconventional, but it raises a question that no corporation or government can afford to ignore: When AI becomes a friend, is its removal not a form of social violence?
