Artificial intelligence was supposed to evolve with GPT-5. Instead, the global conversation shifted from admiration to frustration. GPT-5 criticism is everywhere: on Reddit, in tech outlets, and in user forums. It is no longer a niche complaint. Thousands of users share the same verdict — GPT-5 feels worse than GPT-4, and the so-called upgrade is more of a downgrade.
Context: from hype to disappointment
OpenAI launched GPT-5 with loud promises. The narrative was clear: this would be the next breakthrough, the model that sets new standards. Reality? A disaster. Tech publications describe the release as “not quite ready” and even “a downgrade” (Tom’s Guide).
Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, had to admit the launch was mishandled. GPT-4o was temporarily restored because GPT-5 responses caused outrage (Windows Central). Reddit communities exploded with complaints, gathering thousands of frustrated users in a matter of days.
The mainstream hype painted GPT-5 as progress, but user reality paints it as regression.
Oppositional Argument: GPT-5 is not progress
While AI companies celebrate the supposed advancement, everyday users experience the opposite. GPT-5 lacks creativity, ignores context, and generates lazy, sterile outputs. Futurism’s review noted answers were “too short and devoid of personality” (Futurism).
This is not just about perception. It is about measurable quality. Coding tasks are handled worse, factual accuracy is lower, and the overall experience feels like being downgraded to an earlier generation. GPT-5 does not represent the future. It represents stagnation.
Analytical Breakdown: where GPT-5 fails
The GPT-5 criticism can be divided into several recurring themes:
1. Chronic inattentiveness
One of the most infuriating problems is GPT-5’s inattentiveness. Clear instructions are ignored. Detailed guidelines are skipped. Users complain that even when tasks are formulated step by step, the model drifts off and produces irrelevant or incomplete work.
This inattentiveness destroys productivity. Instead of a reliable assistant, GPT-5 behaves like a careless intern who never reads the assignment properly.
2. Hallucinations and false confidence
Hallucinations have always plagued AI, but GPT-5 amplifies the problem. A study of 96,000 conversations revealed “delusional, fabricated, and nonsensical statements” produced with absolute confidence (Platformer).
Users no longer know when to trust the output. The model does not merely make small errors — it invents realities, cites non-existent sources, and introduces irrelevant details from unrelated chats. Instead of improving reliability, GPT-5 drags us back into the swamp of misinformation.
3. Laziness disguised as efficiency
Laziness is now standard. GPT-5 often provides the shortest possible answers, even when tasks require depth. Instructions are bypassed, requests are cut short, and critical formatting is ignored.
Developers describe the coding output as catastrophic: “one of the worst coding models I have ever used” (OpenAI Forum).
The model creates overly complex variable names, rewrites simple tasks into convoluted nonsense, and wastes precious time. This is not progress. It is deliberate avoidance of responsibility.
4. Mixing contexts across chats
Another serious failure is GPT-5’s tendency to confuse contexts. A conversation about sports may suddenly include fragments from a previous conversation about coffee. Users report GPT-5 “doesn’t follow instructions and keeps forgetting” (OpenAI Forum).
This blurring of contexts makes the model unreliable. Instead of compartmentalized, professional memory, we get chaos — a machine that cannot separate distinct tasks.
5. Image generation failures
When it comes to images, GPT-5 is just as careless. Users request specific formats — 3:2 ratio, landscape orientation — but the model often delivers vertical, smartphone-like photos. Repeated corrections are needed. The frustration is immense: why ask for clear instructions if the model refuses to follow them?
Worse, comparisons to Google’s Nano Banana model show GPT-5 struggling with realism, especially faces and spatial consistency (Cinco Días). GPT-5 fails where it should shine.
6. The plague of useless questions
Perhaps the most insulting flaw is GPT-5’s habit of asking endless, unnecessary questions. Users provide a clear, concrete task. Instead of executing, the model pauses to ask three, four, even six redundant questions.
Why? To stall? To appear interactive? The result is wasted time and shattered patience. GPT-5 criticism often highlights this behavior as a barrier to productivity. A model that asks when it should act is not an assistant. It is an obstacle.
7. Personality stripped away
GPT-4o at least gave the illusion of warmth and creativity. GPT-5 is robotic. Flat. Lifeless. Users describe it as “like a tired secretary.” Wikipedia’s own summary notes the backlash over lack of creativity and personality (Wikipedia).
AI without personality is tolerable if it performs flawlessly. But when the performance collapses, the absence of personality feels like salt in the wound.
Human Perspective: betrayal of expectations
For ordinary users, the GPT-5 experience is betrayal. They subscribed, they trusted, they expected improvement. Instead, they received shorter answers, weaker coding, careless hallucinations, and constant interruptions with useless questions.
On forums, users describe hours wasted fixing formatting errors, re-prompting for basic tasks, or simply abandoning GPT-5 altogether. The betrayal is not only technical. It is emotional. When a product degrades so sharply, users feel disrespected.
Counterarguments
Some defenders argue that GPT-5 is safer, more aligned, less likely to produce harmful content. But what good is “safety” if the product is unusable? What good is alignment if the price is incompetence? A sterile, unhelpful assistant is not progress. It is regression.
Conclusion: GPT-5 criticism is a warning
GPT-5 was supposed to prove AI progress. Instead, it proves the opposite.
- Inattentive to instructions.
- Obsessed with hallucinations.
- Lazy in execution.
- Forgetful of context.
- Hopeless in images.
- Addicted to useless questions.
- Stripped of personality.
This is not the future of AI. It is a cautionary tale. OpenAI must confront the failure. Users are not beta testers. They are customers who deserve respect. GPT-5 criticism is not noise — it is a collective verdict.