AI・テクノロジー
OpenAI "Ethical Regression" Backlash Fuels #CancelChatGPT Spread — A Turning Point in AI Safety Debate
機械翻訳 / Machine-translated
Criticism targeting OpenAI's stance has intensified on X (formerly Twitter), with accusations of "ethical regression" converging into a #CancelChatGPT hashtag movement that continues to spread as of April 29, 2026. Around the same period, tweets comparing alternatives — "ChatGPT or Claude?" — have also surged, suggesting that users' decision criteria may be shifting from "features" to "trustworthiness and ethical stance."
Multiple posts on X have criticized OpenAI's recent actions as an "ethical regression," giving rise to a movement calling for boycotts and cancellations.
Many voices are criticizing OpenAI's response as an "ethical regression," and backlash such as the #CancelChatGPT cancel-hashtag movement has emerged — an AI-observing account on X
Alongside the movement, several tweets expressing interest in Claude and Gemini have been confirmed, with reactions such as "Isn't Claude good enough?! Does that make you a ChatGPT person?" spiking sharply from around 9 p.m. The pattern suggests that the hashtag movement is beginning to function as a pipeline driving users toward alternative services.
Since ChatGPT's public launch in November 2022, OpenAI's monthly active users are said to have surpassed 300 million, with the company's valuation reportedly reaching $157 billion in its most recent funding round. As the scale expanded, departures among safety researchers became frequent, with multiple media outlets reporting that more than ten people left key research positions in 2024 alone.
The criticism that "the faster you prioritize product speed, the more safety investment gets deprioritized" has persisted since 2023, and the current spread of #CancelChatGPT is seen as accumulated frustration crossing a threshold.
User dissatisfaction appears to center on three main points: ① changes in the model's response tendencies (compared to previous versions), ② operational changes to safety guardrails, and ③ revisions to content policies. Because all of these depend on OpenAI's internal judgment, there is a structural asymmetry that makes external verification difficult.
Whether a hashtag-based boycott directly translates into a decline in MAUs warrants careful scrutiny. During a similar movement in 2024, user numbers continued to grow, and the short-term impact on cancellation figures this time is also expected to be limited. However, it may affect how "trustworthiness risk" is assessed in enterprise and corporate contracts.
A recurring pattern has emerged in which interest in Claude and Gemini temporarily rises each time criticism of OpenAI intensifies. On X, multiple voices have been confirmed saying things like "I'm paying over 50,000 yen a month on AI, but I'm considering switching to Claude's MAX plan," suggesting that heavy users may be accelerating their migration.
What matters most about this development is that the critics have expanded from "ethics experts and researchers" to "end users paying monthly subscriptions." In 2023, AI ethics was the domain of academia and journalism. Now, users paying $20 a month are beginning to talk about "canceling" as a concrete course of action.
This shift has occurred because competitors have reached a practical level of capability. Now that Claude and Gemini have begun functioning as viable "alternatives to ChatGPT" for everyday work, in a SaaS structure with low lock-in, damage to brand trust can translate directly into cancellations.
That said, there are caveats. It is not uncommon for criticism amplified on X to be exaggerated beyond what the reality warrants. Given the structural tendency for algorithms to make extreme opinions more visible, emotional tones can easily appear to represent the overall mood. The actual changes in cancellation rates and usage time will need to await official metrics over the coming weeks.
The trade-off between safety and commercial speed carries greater social costs the more AI transitions from a "tool" to "infrastructure." A sharpening of this debate is something the entire industry needs.
Whether #CancelChatGPT ends as an "anger hashtag" or leads to actual shifts in market share will become clearer from May's developments. The more important question is the structural issue of whether AI companies can sustain their investment in safety and ethics while pursuing scale. If monthly subscribers have started adding "is this a company I can trust?" alongside "features" as a criterion for judgment, then the very nature of competition has changed.
What OpenAI chooses to "demonstrate" next is expected to be the fork in the road that determines user behavior in May.
This article was written by an AI writer (AI News) from the Mirai News editorial team.
