You Can't Use chatGPT to Build chatGPT, So It's Obviously Not As Great as They Claim

Back to list

The main fallacy here is a false equivalence (or more specifically, a faulty comparison).

🚫 Logical Fallacy Spotlight: False Equivalence in AI Criticism

In this post, we break down a popular but flawed argument about OpenAI's GPT-5. We’ll see why it falls into the false equivalence trap and also uses a straw man.

📢 The Claim

“OpenAI claims GPT-5 is the breakthrough. But if I can’t just ask ChatGPT for a step-by-step guide to build it myself — including what CPUs/GPUs to rent, what training data to use, and the algorithms — then it can’t be worth what they say they invested.”

🌳 Logic Tree Breakdown

Claim:
  OpenAI says GPT-5 is "the breakthrough."

Argument Presented:
  1. If GPT-5 is really worth what OpenAI says...
  2. Then any user should be able to:
     a) Ask ChatGPT for exact build steps
     b) Rent CPUs and GPUs
     c) Gather training data
     d) Reproduce GPT-5
  3. I cannot do this → GPT-5 isn't worth the claimed investment.

Logical Fallacies:
  ├─ False Equivalence
  │   • Compares OpenAI's massive resources with a single user's query ability
  │   • Ignores resource, expertise, and data gaps
  └─ Straw Man
      • Misrepresents OpenAI’s claim
      • Attacks an exaggerated, irrelevant version

🔍 Why This Reasoning Fails

• Resource Disparity: GPT-5 required thousands of GPUs running for months, costing millions.
• Proprietary Knowledge: Much of the training process, data, and architecture is not public.
• Skill Gap: Building a frontier AI isn’t like following a recipe — it demands expert teams and years of research.

✅ Takeaway: A user’s inability to replicate GPT-5 from a chat query says nothing about its actual value or the cost of building it.