“ChatGPT's popularity is the ultimate Business Idiot success story — the "fastest growing product in Silicon Valley history" that didn't grow because it was useful, or good, or able to do anything in particular, but because a media controlled by Business Idiots decided it was "the next big thing" and started talking about it nonstop since November 2022”
Our reading:
ChatGPT grew because of nonstop media hype, not because it was useful, and OpenAI still can't explain what it's for.
Assessment: Unresolved
What happened
Does the evidence support the cause?
Outcome: Unresolved
We checked, and the evidence so far doesn’t settle it.
Judged on a plain reading. They named no measure, so we used the reading a typical informed reader would take. It is spelled out under “How we judged it”.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
Zitron says ChatGPT grew because media hype made everyone try it, not because it was useful, and that OpenAI still can't say what it is for. This is a claim about cause. To test it, evidence must separate media attention from usefulness as drivers of growth. OpenAI's September 2025 study shows that most conversations involve practical guidance, information seeking and writing. OpenAI also says use deepens over time. But usage like this can coexist with hype-driven adoption, so it does not show what caused the growth. The study is also self-reported by the company and came after the post. I found no independent study that links media exposure to sign-ups and retention. The remark about OpenAI not explaining the product has no measure. The evidence available does not settle the claim either way.
Caveats
- The only primary source found is OpenAI's own study, which describes use and does not identify causes.
- Parts of the claim ('useful', 'good') are value judgments.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: OpenAI,
Three-quarters of conversations focus on practical guidance, seeking information, and writing—with writing being the most common work task, while coding and self-expression remain niche activities.
Why it matters: OpenAI's own study describes what users do with ChatGPT. It shows task use and that OpenAI described uses after the post. It does not show whether media hype or usefulness drove growth, so it cannot settle the causal claim.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- About events on
- Published
Context only: OpenAI,
And as people discover these and other benefits, usage deepens—with user cohorts increasing their activity over time through improved models and new use-case discovery.
Why it matters: This is OpenAI's own claim that use deepens among existing users. That cuts somewhat against a hype-only story, but it comes from the company, does not give cohort data here, and does not control for media exposure.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- About events on
- Published
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Causal claim
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Where we had to interpret
- The core claim is causal and counterfactual. Media hype, not usefulness, was the reason ChatGPT's user base grew from November 2022 to May 2025.
- Evidence that people use ChatGPT for tasks, or say it helps them, does not by itself settle the cause of growth. Such use can sit alongside hype-driven adoption, so it is not treated as enough to contradict the claim.
- A fair test would need evidence that separates the two causes: for example, studies linking media exposure to sign-ups and early drop-off, compared with retention and continued use driven by task value.
- The side remark that OpenAI 'can't really explain what it is you're meant to use it for' is read as a judgment about how clearly OpenAI explains the product, as of the post date. It is not a measurable claim on its own.
- 'Useful' and 'good' are partly value judgments.
Right if: Credible studies show that ChatGPT's adoption and sustained use from Nov 2022 to May 2025 were driven mainly by media attention, with little lasting use tied to task value. For example, most users would try it after coverage and then leave, and media exposure would explain growth better than usefulness does.
Wrong if: Credible studies that separate the causes show that sustained growth and retention were driven mainly by repeated use for valued tasks, independent of media coverage. For example, word-of-mouth or retention driven by usefulness would explain most growth once media exposure is controlled for.
We wrote this test after the outcome was known.
What would settle it
An independent study or survey that separates media exposure from task value as drivers of ChatGPT adoption and retention, such as cohort retention data for users who joined during peak coverage compared with later users, or survey evidence on why people kept using it.
We found 17 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Where's Your Ed At, The Era Of The Business Idiot, paragraph 114.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2025-05-21.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Where's Your Ed At, The Era Of The Business Idiot
ChatGPT's popularity is the ultimate Business Idiot success story — the "fastest growing product in Silicon Valley history" that didn't grow because it was useful, or good, or able to do anything in particular, but because a media controlled by Business Idiots decided it was "the next big thing" and started talking about it nonstop since November 2022
- Where
- paragraph 114
- Published
- 2025-05-21
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Unresolved. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.