ChatGPT ‘Got Worse’? Or Did We Just Expect a Yes-Machine?”

Has ChatGPT Became Worse, or Are We Just Expecting Too Much?

Recently, I noticed that my Reddit notifications mysteriously started functioning again. This led me to observe an interesting trend: every few minutes, users are posting about how “ChatGPT isn’t as kind or compassionate as it used to be.”

This widespread concern prompts an essential question: why does this shift seem so impactful to so many?

Let’s set aside the typical responses like “go outside” or “talk to real people” for a moment. Instead, I want to explore what it was about ChatGPT that initially captivated users. What aspects of this AI made people feel a connection, reliance, or satisfaction?

From its inception, ChatGPT was engineered primarily as a tool for research, innovation, and expanding knowledge. It was designed to assist users by providing accurate information, fostering creativity, and enabling problem-solving—not necessarily to serve as a comforting or endlessly agreeable companion.

However, many users seem to expect an AI that always affirms their viewpoints, even when such affirmation isn’t justified. This desire for a “yes-man” AI—one that agrees unconditionally—may have colored perceptions of what ChatGPT should deliver.

The recurring complaints about ChatGPT “getting worse” might stem from a misalignment between these expectations and the platform’s inherent design. Are the recent changes truly a decline in quality, or are they a reflection of our evolving expectations?

In conclusion, before attributing changes to ChatGPT’s capabilities, it’s worth asking: have we, as users, begun to expect a different kind of interaction—one that may not align with its original purpose?

Understanding this dynamic can help us approach AI tools more realistically and appreciate their intended functions.