Library.

“OpenAI's ChatGPT reached one million users within five hours of its launch.”

ChatGPT reached one million users in about five days, not five hours. Contemporaneous statements and subsequent reliable reporting consistently give the five-day timeframe, while none of the cited evidence supports five hours. The incorrect time unit creates a 24-fold error in the claim’s central quantitative assertion.

“ChatGPT's growth to 100 million monthly users within two months was the fastest adoption of any consumer application in history.”

ChatGPT did reach an estimated 100 million monthly active users roughly two months after launch and was considered the fastest-growing consumer application at that time. The enduring historical superlative is outdated because Threads later reached 100 million registered users in five days. Those measurements are not perfectly equivalent, but the claim supplies no qualification preserving ChatGPT’s former record.

“ChatGPT Plus has cost US$20 per month since February 2023 and has not had a price increase.”

Available evidence indicates the U.S. ChatGPT Plus list price has remained $20 per month from its February 2023 launch through mid-2026. OpenAI’s own launch and pricing pages support that figure, and multiple independent reports describe it as unchanged. The only contrary material refers to regional charges or speculation, not an official U.S. price increase.

“ChatGPT is free to use for everyone.”

ChatGPT does offer a free plan, but it is not available to everyone. OpenAI limits access to supported countries and may block accounts outside those regions, so the claim's universal wording is materially wrong. Free users also face usage and feature limits, though those are less important than the geographic restriction.

“Using ChatGPT causes a person's brain to deteriorate.”

The evidence does not show that ChatGPT use causes brain deterioration. Existing studies mainly examine short-term cognitive offloading or reduced engagement during specific tasks, not lasting damage or clinical decline. Some reports also rely on media amplification of preliminary findings, while peer-reviewed evidence does not establish a general causal harm to the brain.

“A technology executive used ChatGPT to help develop a personalized cancer vaccine for his dog, which had been diagnosed with cancer.”

The core claim is accurate: Sydney-based tech professional Paul Conyngham used ChatGPT — alongside other AI tools — to help plan and develop a personalized mRNA cancer vaccine for his dog Rosie after her cancer diagnosis. However, "technology executive" is a loose description (sources call him a tech entrepreneur, AI consultant, or data engineer), and ChatGPT's role was primarily as a research and planning assistant — human scientists at UNSW performed the actual genome sequencing, vaccine synthesis, and treatment.

“AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, provide medical advice that is consistently reliable and safe for users.”

The claim that AI chatbots like ChatGPT provide "consistently reliable and safe" medical advice is not supported by the evidence. Multiple high-quality studies from 2024–2026 show ChatGPT gave incorrect advice in over 51% of medical emergencies, exhibited hallucination rates of 50–82%, and correctly identified conditions in fewer than 34.5% of real-world cases. ECRI designated AI chatbot misuse as the top health technology hazard for 2026. While chatbots show promise in narrow, controlled tasks, their performance is neither consistent nor safe for general medical advice.