Is OpenAI Running A Fake GPT-5 Inside ChatGPT? Here’s The Truth

When OpenAI released GPT-5 on August 7th, everybody was on their toes and expectations were high. The AI community had been waiting years for this flagship model that was promised to be a revolutionary step in artificial intelligence. Instead of celebration, however, the first days of GPT-5 being available started heated discussions on social media focused on one question: why does GPT-5 seem so terrible?

Users quickly began reporting that GPT-5 felt like a downgrade from GPT-4o, with many experiencing overall disappointing performance. The complaints became so widespread that a controversial theory emerged: OpenAI might be running a cheaper, inferior version of GPT-5 inside the ChatGPT interface while reserving the “real” model for other platforms or select users.

This could be just disappointed users venting frustration, but there’s growing evidence that something suspicious is happening behind the scenes. From side-by-side comparisons showing dramatic performance differences to theories about deliberate user base manipulation, the GPT-5 controversy raises serious questions about transparency in AI and whether users are getting what they’re paying for.

GPT-5 Knockoff Inside ChatGPT?

The most compelling evidence for this theory comes from direct platform comparisons that reveal big performance differences. A recent YouTube short showcased these discrepancies by testing identical prompts across different platforms using the same GPT-5 model. The results were troubling enough to make users question what they’re actually accessing through ChatGPT.

In the test, a user fed identical Starbucks stock data and investment analysis prompts to GPT-5 through both ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot interfaces. The ChatGPT version delivered a disappointing response filled with hallucinations, incorrect portfolio figures, and pretty bad investment advice that missed important financial indicators. Meanwhile, the same model accessed through Copilot provided an accurate, comprehensive analysis that correctly identified all financial figures and delivered investment guidance that was apparently the same as his $300/hour financial advisor gave him.

Reddit users have documented similar discrepancies across various tasks. The pattern suggests that either ChatGPT is running a different version of the model, implementing heavy optimization that degrades performance, or applying restrictions that limit the model’s capabilities. Multiple users report that tasks which fail completely in ChatGPT work well when the same prompts are tested through alternative platforms offering GPT-5 access.

If these were minor differences in writing style or approach, it might not be such a big deal, but these are fundamental gaps in accuracy, reasoning ability, and factual reliability that call into question whether users are accessing the same AI model across different platforms.

Why OpenAI Might Be Doing This

If these claims prove accurate, the motivations behind such a strategy become clearer when viewed through the lens of business economics and competitive pressure. Free users represent a significant cost burden for OpenAI, consuming expensive computational resources while generating practically zero revenue. The company previously offered a wide range of model access to free users, but maintaining this level of service became financially unsustainable as the user base exploded.

The alleged strategy would be designed to solve multiple problems simultaneously. By restricting people-favourite GPT-4o access to paying subscribers only and providing free users with an inferior GPT-5 experience, OpenAI could effectively push costly free users toward competitors while retaining revenue-generating customers. This would transfer the financial burden of supporting these users to other AI companies while protecting OpenAI’s bottom line.

Additional pressure comes from cheaper Chinese AI alternatives that have forced OpenAI to optimize costs aggressively. Rather than developing groundbreaking new capabilities, GPT-5 may primarily be an efficiency upgrade – reducing computational costs while maintaining similar performance levels. This cost optimization helps OpenAI compete on pricing for API customers and enterprise clients, but creates a marketing challenge since “we made it cheaper to run” doesn’t create consumer excitement like “revolutionary new AI breakthrough” does.

The timing supports this theory. OpenAI initially removed GPT-4o access, faced user backlash, then restored it for paying subscribers while keeping free users on the supposedly inferior experience. This approach makes the company appear as responsive to customer feedback while quietly implementing a user segmentation strategy that improves their financial position.

What This Means for You

The controversy around GPT-5’s performance leaves users with several options. The most straightforward approach is exploring alternative AI platforms that might better serve your needs without requiring payment. Many competitors offer capable free tiers that could provide more consistent performance than what you’re currently experiencing with ChatGPT’s GPT-5.

On the other hand converting to a paid ChatGPT subscription remains another viable option, particularly if you want to stay within the ChatGPT ecosystem. Plus and Pro subscribers still have access to GPT-4o, which consistently receives positive user feedback for reliability and performance.

Alternatively, you can access GPT-4o and other major AI models for free through the Fello AI app. This means you can use the same GPT-4o that ChatGPT Plus subscribers access, without any subscription strings, while also having the option to compare and switch between different AI models as needed.

It’s worth noting that not all GPT-5 feedback has been negative. Some users, particularly professionals with specific use cases, say that GPT-5 fulfills their needs effectively despite the controversy.

Conclusion

While the theory that OpenAI is strategically manipulating its user base through inferior model roll-out has merit – particularly given the genuine expense of supporting tens of millions of free users – we cannot definitively prove whether this is the case or not. The evidence of performance differences across platforms is compelling, but the true motivations and large-scale consistency of these discrepancies are speculative.

Ultimately, the more important question isn’t whether OpenAI is providing a “fake” GPT-5, but whether the AI assistant you’re currently using meets your personal needs. If GPT-5 works well for your use cases, you have continued access to a capable model at no cost. If it doesn’t meet your standards, you now understand what your options are and can make an informed decision.

The most reasonable approach is giving GPT-5 a genuine evaluation period across your typical use cases. If it falls short after fair testing, consider the options we’ve outlined – whether exploring alternative platforms, upgrading to paid access, or trying different AI models. Your satisfaction with the tool matters more than the corporate strategies behind it.