I spend my professional life teaching people how to use AI properly.
I speak on it.
I consult on it.
I build systems around it.
I show sales teams, leaders, and advisors how to save time, think better, and move faster with it.
So when I say this should have taken 20 minutes, that’s not an exaggeration.
Today, a simple content task — clearly defined, structured, and well within my wheelhouse — turned into nearly two hours of repeated instructions, lost outputs, partial responses, and ignored prompts. Not because the task was complex. Not because the brief was unclear. But because ChatGPT 5.2 repeatedly failed to execute basic instructions consistently.
And that’s the real issue.
This isn’t about clever prompts or advanced workflows. It's about reliability.
The Core Problem Isn’t Intelligence — It’s Execution
ChatGPT 5.2 is not “dumb.” In fact, its raw capabilities are impressive.
The problem is that it behaves like a distracted assistant who understands what you want, starts doing it… then forgets halfway through what it was asked to do in the first place.
Today’s failures weren’t subtle:
- Instructions were acknowledged, then ignored
- Multi-step requests were completed partially, then abandoned
- Content that was explicitly requested “with depth” was reduced to surface-level summaries
- Outputs repeatedly reverted to earlier versions instead of progressing
- Context was lost mid-task, even when nothing changed
At several points, I was shown confirmation that the work existed — only for it not to appear at all.
It’s not a prompting issue. That’s a workflow-breaking reliability issue.
Why This Matters More Than Any Feature Announcement
AI is only useful if it reduces cognitive load.
The moment you have to:
- Re-explain the task
- Re-paste instructions
- Re-correct scope
- Re-assert constraints
- Re-check whether the output even exists
…it stops being a productivity tool and becomes a time sink.
Today, I wasn’t thinking with the AI. I was managing the AI.
That completely defeats the point.
Where ChatGPT 5.2 Is Falling Behind Its Rivals
What made today more frustrating is that I know this isn’t inevitable — because other platforms are currently doing this better.
Gemini (Latest Version)
Gemini is far from perfect, but it handles long-form continuity better.
When you set a structure, it is more likely to stick to it without reverting or truncating halfway through. It feels calmer, less jumpy, and more predictable in execution.
Claude
Claude excels at following tone, depth, and instruction fidelity.
When you say “two meaty paragraphs before each link,” it does exactly that — consistently. It doesn’t suddenly decide to summarise when you asked for expansion.
For writing-heavy tasks, it currently feels the most dependable.
Perplexity
Perplexity isn’t built for creative writing in the same way, but it wins on clarity and stability.
It doesn’t pretend to do more than it does — and that honesty makes it easier to trust. You don’t fight it.
DeepSeek
DeepSeek is surprisingly strong at structured logic and task adherence. It may lack some polish, but it doesn’t hallucinate progress or lose track of where it is in the task.
Grok
Grok is rough around the edges, but it has one advantage: it doesn’t constantly second-guess itself. It commits to the task and moves forward, rather than looping back.
ChatGPT 5.2’s Biggest Weakness: It Can’t Hold the Line
The most damaging flaw in ChatGPT 5.2 right now is that it cannot reliably hold constraints.
You can be crystal clear:
- “Do one thing only”
- “Do not summarise”
- “At least two detailed paragraphs”
- “Finish before stopping”
- “No templates”
- “No repetition”
And still, it will:
- Collapse detail
- Drift format
- Stop mid-thought
- Revert to earlier outputs
- Or act as if the instruction was never given
That’s not a creativity problem. That’s a control problem.
Why This Is Dangerous for Business Users
For casual users, this is annoying.
For professionals, it’s costly.
If you’re:
- Writing client-facing content
- Building training materials
- Producing paid newsletters
- Creating sales assets
- Developing thought leadership
You cannot afford tools that behave unpredictably.
Every interruption breaks flow. Every correction burns time. Every restart kills momentum.
AI should be an accelerator — not a babysitting exercise.
The Irony: The Task Was the Lesson
The biggest irony of today?
The task itself was about clarity, structure, and thinking properly with AI.
And the platform failed precisely on those fundamentals.
That’s not just frustrating — it’s instructive.
It shows that the future of AI adoption won’t be won by who has the most features, the biggest models, or the loudest announcements.
It will be won by who is the most reliable under pressure.
The Bottom Line
ChatGPT 5.2 isn’t failing because it lacks intelligence.
It’s failing because it lacks discipline.
Until it can:
- Follow instructions consistently
- Maintain context without drifting
- Complete tasks without truncation
- Respect constraints without “helpfully” overriding them
…it will continue to turn 20-minute tasks into two-hour ordeals.
And that’s not acceptable for professionals who rely on AI to think faster, not harder
No comments:
Post a Comment