GPT-5.1's Instruction Following: More Than Just "Warmer"

ChatGPT 5.1 just moved the goal posts. What used to feel like casual instructions now demand the precision of software specs — because the model takes every word you write seriously.

Core insight: Conflicting prompts no longer get smoothed over. If you say "be concise" and "explain in detail" in one breath, you won't get an average response. You'll get friction, oscillation, or flat-out weird output.

Need momentum this quarter? Quick wins + a sustainable roadmap—done with your team.
Get started

Three Takeaways

• Separate your rules. Don't pile tone, safety, and workflow instructions into one paragraph. ChatGPT 5.1 needs clean, modular specs — like code, not wishes.

• Debug contradictions first. When behavior is off, your first move should be to find conflicting instructions, not assume the model got worse.

• Keep settings simple. If you tell ChatGPT to be brief, comprehensive, and friendly at the same time, you're programming a collision. Simplify, clarify, and make every instruction count.

Example: As we've covered in Beyond Prompts: How Context Engineering Is Shaping the Next Wave of AI, context engineering has replaced prompt engineering as the standard for serious workflows. Now ChatGPT 5.1 enforces this by treating prompts like real specifications. I tested this last week: my old prompt for summarizing research — "Be thorough but concise, friendly but professional" — produced unstable results. When I rewrote it as "Summarize in three bullets, one sentence each, professional tone," the model delivered precisely that, every time.

Why This Matters More Than "Warmer"

The improved instruction following stems from GPT-5.1's adaptive reasoning system - the model now dynamically decides how much "thinking time" to allocate to each request. This allows it to:

1. Catch nuances and constraints it might have glossed over previously

2. Execute precise formatting requests consistently

3. Honor behavioral constraints in system prompts (like "don't apologize")

This is why the official documentation emphasizes that developers need to treat prompts like "real specs" rather than casual suggestions. This creates both opportunities and challenges.

The Upside

• Fewer iterations to get the format you want

• More reliable tool usage (as shown in the prompting guide examples)

• Better adherence to length, structure, and style constraints

• More consistent behavior across sessions

The Downside

• Conflicting instructions cause more pronounced issues

• The model won't "average out" contradictory requests as older models did

• Hidden defaults and vague language lead to more noticeable drift

Practical Implications

For developers

• Separate concerns in your system prompts (tone, tools, safety, workflow rules)

• Implement explicit conflict resolution protocols

• Use the new "none" reasoning mode when you need GPT-4.1-like behavior

For non-technical users

• Be specific but not contradictory in your requests

• Use the tone/style controls deliberately rather than mixing conflicting style requests

• When behavior seems off, check for contradictory instructions first before assuming model degradation

The "warmer" marketing is surface-level; the real story is a fundamental conversion toward instruction precision that changes how we interact with and build on these models.

My Open Tabs

Looking for more great writing in your inbox? 👉 Discover the newsletters busy professionals love to read.

For services or sponsorships, email me at info at firstaimovers dot com; or message me on LinkedIn.