Now there are over 1,200,000 people who have joined the international boycott. https://quitgpt.org/

Anthropic as well, in December they agreed to allow the U.S. gov to use its AI systems for missile and cyber defense purposes. They received an ultimatum from the DoD to allow their systems to be used for ALL legal military purposes, basically surveillance, lethal autonomous weapons etc. Will see what they decide by Friday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/anthropic-pentagon-us-military-can-use-ai-missile-defense-hegseth-rcna260534

Not saying Bregman is wrong (I don't really have a belief on the matter) but this is not what I'd call a "strong case". He says

As a historian, I've studied some of the major consumer boycott in history. Which ones changed history, and which ones fizzled out?

The answer is surprisingly consistent: the successful ones didn't try to fight everything at once. They picked a single target – one that was both symbolically powerful and genuinely vulnerable – and went all in.

But then he provides only one example (Montgomery Bus Boycott), and doesn't provide any evidence that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was an important causal factor in ending segregation.

FWIW I certainly wouldn't tell anyone not to boycott ChatGPT. Decreasing OpenAI's revenue is good for the world.

This seems like a good time to remind everyone of @JamesÖz 🔸classic post why you can justify almost anything using historical social movements. This seems especially true when a single anecdote is referenced. Maybe Bregman has more evidence behind this claim but he certainly hasn't shared it in this post. 

I don't have a ChatGPT subscription. If I stop using their free tier, I think this has two effects: It benefits them because they can spend less resources on inference and it hurts them because investors lose trust in them. Do you think the expected net effect is positive or negative? Should I stop using their free tier if I want to protest against OpenAI? 

Also, I noticed that I can check multiple boxes on https://quitgpt.org/ and only one of them is "I cancelled my subscription". If I understand the footnote below the number displayed at the top (currently 1,200,000) correctly, it counts everyone who checked any of the boxes. I would be more curious about how high the number of only the people is, who canceled their subscription or commit to not paying for ChatGPT in the future.

I'm convinced tho I must admit I was turned off by this post (and the associated quitgpt.org) opening its case by Brockman's contribution to MAGA. And that's saying something cuz I dislike that movement a lot. 

But I really think it's much more partisan and controversial than it should be when the reasons that follow include being unprincipled about enabling authoritarianism.

Your post (along with Anthropic's statement, and Sam Altman's tweet) convinced me to switch from ChatGPT Plus to Claude Pro.

I am not particuarly convinced by Bregman's reasoning. I think the frequent prompts (by your post, Anthropic's, and Altman's) to consider boycotting ChatGPT is probably what actually convinced me, which is not very rational to best honest.

My "rational" justification is that I think moving $20/month from OpenAI to Anthropic is most likely non-negative (and probably positive). I'm not sure it why I never thought of this before haha

Thank you!

It occurs to me that a person could create a nonprofit competitor to ChatGPT, which makes use of open models and donates excess revenue to AI alignment research. That way you can pay for a chatbot without contributing to AI advancement.

Whether to use or stop using a product is a personal decision, not something that has a single “right” answer. The most useful step is to separate the claims from the emotions and verify them. Look at primary sources, financial reports, public filings, and multiple viewpoints, not just advocacy posts or counter posts. Big tech companies often look both powerful and financially strained at the same time because they invest heavily in growth, so headlines about losses or market share can be misleading without context.

Also consider what outcome you actually want. A boycott only has impact if it clearly communicates a specific, realistic change and if enough people act consistently over time. Most consumer boycotts fade because users quietly return when convenience outweighs motivation. If your concern is about how AI is governed, engaging with policy discussions, supporting transparency efforts, or choosing tools that align with your values can be more direct than trying to damage a single company.

In short, treat this less like a moral panic moment and more like any other decision about technology you rely on. Check the facts carefully, decide what tradeoffs matter to you, and act accordingly.