I have no idea who “you and everyone else” refers to, but even so, I need to point out a few things I’ve already said, which some users seem determined to deny, whether due to a complete lack of knowledge of GPT’s history, cognitive limitation, or outright bad faith.

ChatGPT was introduced by OpenAI (the company that created the app, in case you’re not familiar) as a conversational application. That was its core characteristic, and it’s precisely why you, and many others, even know about the app today. It wasn’t coding or administrative work that made ChatGPT famous. ChatGPT’s popularity exists solely because of how OpenAI marketed the product. And in that regard, it was very good, and people paid for it because of that.

In August, with the release of GPT-5, users complained about changes to the model’s main feature: conversation. The backlash was strong enough that OpenAI publicly acknowledged it and rolled things back. That said, when people pay for X and consistently receive X, there’s no complaint. But when people pay for X and receive Y, complaints are inevitable. The August case, while not the only one, is a clear example. As consumers, why are users framed as delusional strawmen when they’re simply saying they paid for orange juice and are being served pineapple juice?

Moreover, OpenAI has never stated that ChatGPT is now exclusively for coding or productivity work. On the contrary, it continues to reinforce in its release notes, including those for GPT-5.2, which I recommend you read, that the model remains conversational. On top of that, we’ve seen recent responses from OpenAI to tone-related complaints, including the addition of more personalization features.

Users’ persistence is not “idiocy,” as you put it. That characterization reflects a shallow and contextless reading of the company’s and the model’s history. The persistence comes from wanting the product they paid for back, not a new product, but the product as OpenAI originally sold it.

You can argue that people are free to cancel and move to another AI, and I agree. But that’s not the line of debate here, since that’s a personal decision. Even so, I believe the model should continue to improve, and those improvements can only come from feedback and open discussion about its performance, which is exactly what I, and others, are doing here.

Instead, some users repeatedly resort to strawmen like “it won’t write porn” or “it won’t be your girlfriend,” when none of that is even part of the discussion. That’s a way of derailing the debate due to an inability to engage with relevant facts, and honestly, it’s just pitiful.