This "AI" Isn't Worth It

An argument I hear often when people complain about paying for GPT, is simply "it's too good too be free." Now even though I don't disagree with the idea that GPT is useful, what I'm concerned with is the fact that it's not, and has never been, what the general public perceives it as. Google's Gemini is a much more accurate example of AI. I believe the only reason OpenAI is hailed as the "AI" is because of how OpenAI has created this illusion that GPT is actually an artifical intelligence. In reality, it's really good at memorizing a lot of books, has a little common sense, and is an overall good tool. It's what OpenAI is doing in the shadows that makes GPT seem so intelligent. <br><br>OpenAI uses masses of user data to make GPT even better. Essentially it's speculating what a user is looking for, and putting it right in front of their face, to save them time from searching. If you combine the fact that it can memorize a lot of information, throw in user data, and adapt to new information as it comes out, you have a powerful tool, not AI. Google's Gemini did the same thing with user data, but they weren't afraid to tell their userbase what they were doing. I think this is where the main difference is: people will gladly give OpenAI their data if they know that's what's happening behind the scenes.<br><br>I think the artifical illusion around GPT has to stop. It's useful, but it's not where anyone wants it to be. GPT shouldn't be able to break down as much as it does, and the cost for this "AI" shouldn't be 30 dollars. I have no problem with paying for a service I use, but I want to be using an actual AI.