www.youtube.com
23 Ways ChatGPT Still Sucks After 3 years (And How to Fix Them)
Excerpt
1. Collaboration Gaps: Current chatbots trap conversations between one user and the AI, lacking threading, branching, and granular sharing tools—forcing users into copy-paste ping pong instead of live co-editing. 2. Weak Intent Capture: Users must prompt precisely for good results; there’s no dynamic UI to clarify inputs with checkboxes or sliders for personality and agenticness. 3. From Ideas to Output: Poor formatting on export, disappearing action items, and messy stakeholder sharing prevent smooth conversion of AI output into shippable work. 4. Maintenance Pain: Users can’t auto-refresh outputs, see diffs, or have agents that update themselves based on changing sources—requiring constant babysitting. 5. Trust & Control Deficits: Citation handling, memory editing, privacy options, and cost visibility remain underdeveloped, limiting confidence in sensitive or high-stakes work. 6. Retrieval Friction: Finished work gets buried with no smart grouping, pinning, or deep in-chat search, forcing reinvention of previous outputs. 7. Quality-of-Life Misses: Version history, tone control, and dynamic form generation are missing—leading to wasted edits, tone whiplash, and repetitive data entry. Quotes: “We’re three years into the LLM revolution, and it still shouldn’t suck this much to use a chatbot.” “I want to jump from a clever chat to an actual workbench.” “Right now, collaboration is just copy-paste ping pong.” Summary: I break down why today’s chatbots, despite massive adoption, still fail at turning ideas into usable work. The biggest gaps are in collaboration, intent capture, formatting, and retrieval. Users can’t easily share slices of chats, branch work, adjust agenticness, or export cleanly. Outputs get lost in scrolls, updates require manual babysitting, and trust features like source receipts and memory control are thin. Smarter UI, better export pipelines, proactive agents, granular privacy, and robust search would move chat from clever text exchange to a true productivity workbench.
Related Pain Points
Poor collaboration and multi-user sharing
6ChatGPT conversations are trapped between one user and the AI, lacking threading, branching, granular sharing tools, and co-editing capabilities. Users resort to copy-paste workflows to collaborate instead of live sharing, and there is no way to share specific slices of conversations.
Poor export formatting and output loss
6ChatGPT lacks good formatting options for exporting outputs, action items disappear, and work gets lost in chat scrolls. There is no smart grouping, pinning, deep in-chat search, or version history, forcing users to reinvent previous outputs and manually manage versioning.
Underdeveloped trust and control features
5ChatGPT lacks proper citation handling, memory editing capabilities, privacy options, and cost visibility. These limitations make it difficult to verify sources, control what data is retained, and understand usage costs—preventing confident use for sensitive or high-stakes work.
Weak intent capture and lack of dynamic UI controls
4Users must prompt precisely for good results with no dynamic UI to clarify inputs. There are no checkboxes, sliders, or other controls to adjust personality, agenticness, tone, or other parameters, requiring users to repeatedly specify preferences through text prompts.