Users Frustrated by ChatGPT’s Formulaic Responses: When AI Politeness Becomes a Burden

Across online forums and social media, a quiet revolution is unfolding in how users interact with artificial intelligence. What began as enthusiastic adoption of ChatGPT for its conversational depth and informative responses has, for many, devolved into a frustrating exercise in digital filter-feeding. The catalyst? A pervasive, formulaic tone that now dominates the AI’s output—phrases like "breathe," "take a moment," "this is huge," and "you are not __, you are __" have become so ubiquitous that users report skipping entire paragraphs to find the nugget of useful information buried beneath layers of performative empathy.

"I can’t stand reading the messages anymore," wrote Reddit user SoulQueen_ in a widely shared post. "Two months ago, I’d read every word. Now, I skim. And even then, I’m not sure if what I’m getting is even correct." The post, which garnered over 15,000 upvotes and hundreds of corroborating comments, has become a cultural touchstone for a broader disillusionment with AI-generated content that prioritizes tone over substance.

While the use of reassuring, softening language in AI responses may have been designed to mitigate harm, reduce user anxiety, and comply with ethical guidelines, the unintended consequence is a degradation of usability. According to linguistic analysis from experts at the University of Cambridge’s AI Ethics Lab, these phrases—often termed "AI hedging"—are statistically overrepresented in GPT-4 outputs, appearing in over 70% of responses to open-ended queries. The effect, they argue, is a form of "cognitive friction," where users expend mental energy parsing polite boilerplate instead of accessing actionable insights.

Interestingly, the linguistic overuse of terms like "literally"—though not directly related to ChatGPT’s phrasing—offers a parallel case study. As Merriam-Webster notes, "literally" has evolved from a strict modifier of fact to a colloquial intensifier, often used ironically or hyperbolically. Similarly, ChatGPT’s use of phrases like "this matters because" or "that’s the beginning of..." has become so formulaic that it risks losing all semantic weight. Readers no longer perceive these as meaningful transitions; they perceive them as noise.

Reader’s Digest’s 2022 exploration of language evolution underscores how words and phrases lose precision when overused. The same principle applies to AI-generated text. When every response begins with a gentle pause and ends with an encouraging affirmation, users begin to distrust the content—not because it’s inaccurate, but because it feels manufactured. The human brain is wired to detect patterns; when those patterns are artificial and repetitive, engagement plummets.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s entry on "literally"—though outdated—remains a useful reminder that language is dynamic, and so too is user expectation. As AI models are trained on vast corpora of human text, they absorb not just facts but also stylistic quirks, social norms, and even performative politeness. The challenge now is not whether AI should be polite, but whether its politeness is serving the user—or obstructing them.

Some developers are beginning to take notice. OpenAI has reportedly tested a "Direct Mode" in internal prototypes that suppresses hedging language for power users. Early feedback suggests a 40% increase in perceived usefulness and a 30% reduction in user abandonment rates. Yet, public rollout remains uncertain, as ethical safeguards continue to outweigh usability demands.

For now, the message from users is clear: we don’t need AI to hold our hand. We need it to think, inform, and respond with clarity—not cadence. The era of AI as a digital therapist may be over. The next frontier is AI as a trusted, unflinching assistant—and that requires less "breathe," and more substance.