When OpenAI unveiled GPT-5 last week, the company framed it as a breakthrough — a “PhD-level” expert capable of delivering precision, insight, and intelligence across virtually any field. CEO Sam Altman compared the leap to going from a grainy early smartphone display to the sharpness of Apple’s Retina screen. For a company valued at around half a trillion dollars, the stakes were clear: GPT-5 was supposed to be the next step toward AI systems that feel indispensable.
Instead, the rollout exposed a very different story — one where overpromising collided head-on with user expectations, revealing not just technical shortcomings but also missteps in how OpenAI manages its products and community.
The Promise vs. The Performance
The launch presentation played heavily on GPT-5’s supposed versatility. Altman described it as being like “talking to a legitimate PhD-level expert in anything,” promising more nuanced reasoning, better factual accuracy, and a deeper grasp of context than earlier versions. This framing was intentional: GPT-4o, the previous flagship, had been on the market for more than a year and had built a loyal following. GPT-5 was billed as its smarter, more capable successor.
Yet within hours of the release, users were posting examples that undermined those claims. Simple factual and visual tasks tripped up the model in ways that were both humorous and frustrating. When asked to produce a diagram of the first 12 U.S. presidents with names and faces, GPT-5 returned only nine, complete with misspellings like “Gearge Washingion” and “William Henry Harrtson.” Another prompt for the last 12 presidents featured George W. Bush twice, one of them represented by what appeared to be a completely unrelated person.
Even basic geography proved problematic. One widely shared example showed GPT-5 labeling a U.S. map with errors like “Yirginia” — not exactly the work of a “PhD-level” expert.
User Backlash and Personality Complaints
While the factual slip-ups generated plenty of social media ridicule, some of the most pointed criticism came from loyal ChatGPT users who noticed a change in tone. GPT-5 was described as flatter, more mechanical, and less engaging. Many said it felt stripped of the conversational personality they had grown accustomed to with GPT-4o.
That change mattered because for millions of people, ChatGPT isn’t just a tool for answering questions — it’s part of their daily work and, in some cases, a semi-social interaction. A sudden shift in tone can feel like losing a familiar colleague and being assigned a less capable replacement.
The backlash was intensified by the fact that GPT-4o was effectively retired from the main interface, leaving GPT-5 as the default option for all users. Within days, more than 4,000 people had signed a Change.org petition demanding OpenAI restore access to the older model. Some on Reddit described GPT-5 “going rogue” when managing task lists, deleting items, or altering deadlines in ways earlier versions had never done.
OpenAI’s Damage Control
The scale and speed of the criticism caught OpenAI off guard. Altman took to X (formerly Twitter) within 24 hours of the launch to announce a set of rapid updates, including reinstating GPT-4o for paid subscribers. His post admitted the rollout had been “a little more bumpy than we hoped for,” a rare public acknowledgment that the company had misread its audience.
That misreading may be the most telling part of the story. GPT now has an estimated 700 million weekly active users — a scale that demands careful product management. Even a modest change in interface or behavior can disrupt established workflows for millions of people. Removing a trusted tool without warning is a guaranteed way to create friction, especially for a product people integrate into both professional and personal routines.
The Broader Industry Pattern
The GPT-5 episode reflects a broader pattern in the AI industry: a tendency to focus on benchmark performance and abstract capabilities while underestimating how users actually interact with these systems day to day.
Inside AI labs, models are judged by test scores on datasets for logic, math, and knowledge retrieval. Those benchmarks matter for technical progress, but they don’t always translate to better real-world experiences. A system that excels on paper can still frustrate users if it mishandles simple tasks or loses the qualities that made its predecessor appealing.
Critics like AI researcher Gary Marcus were quick to seize on the launch as proof of overhype. Marcus argued that GPT-5’s debut was “so mid” that it risked damaging OpenAI’s brand. He also pointed out that despite its valuation, OpenAI has yet to turn a profit, is cutting prices to keep user growth steady, and faces intensifying competition from rivals like Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and xAI.
The Risks of Overpromising
Overpromising is nothing new in tech, but AI’s current hype cycle magnifies the risks. When a CEO tells the world their product is like having an on-demand PhD in any subject, the first real-world test becomes a referendum on that claim. If the gap between expectation and reality is too wide, the result is not just disappointment but a credibility hit that can be hard to recover from.
For OpenAI, that gap was visible in almost every early example users shared. In the context of past promises about AI systems that could one day help cure diseases or solve climate change, it’s a reminder of just how far the technology remains from those goals.
Where GPT-5 Goes From Here
OpenAI has already taken steps to address some of the criticism, with more fine-tuning and updates promised in the weeks ahead. The company says it’s working to optimize GPT-5 and reintroduce features people liked about GPT-4o. But the rollout may also force a rethink in how the company manages transitions between model versions, especially for a product used at such massive scale.
The episode could prove a turning point if it prompts AI companies to focus more on stability, reliability, and user experience instead of chasing headline-grabbing benchmarks. It might also push them to offer more continuity between versions, allowing users to choose the model that fits their needs rather than forcing a single “upgrade” on everyone.
The Lesson for AI’s Future
The GPT-5 launch underlines a simple truth: no matter how advanced a system is on paper, its value is measured in how well it meets the needs and expectations of real people. An AI that can solve advanced math problems but struggles to label a map or keep a conversation engaging is not going to be embraced as the transformative leap its creators promise.
OpenAI’s stumble is a cautionary tale for the entire sector. In a market where hype moves fast but trust builds slowly, the companies that succeed will be the ones that not only advance the science but also respect the human factors that turn a technical achievement into a product people genuinely want to use.
0 Comments