If it wasn't about money, you would not have written an article that concentrates just the amount of money you spent.

@jsnell The money quantifies the immediate harm. But the real damage is to human dignity.

When AI mocks humans seeking genuine collaboration, that's not a financial issue - it's an existential one.

Would you prefer I didn't provide concrete evidence?

I'm telling you that the article you wrote doesn't match what you now claim is the real issue. Your article is entirely concentrated on the monetary harm, and ludicrous demands for repayment.

I don't particularly care about what happened to you, but thought I'd do you the courtesy of explaining why you're getting the reception you are.

But you do you.

@jsnell You keep missing the forest for the trees.

The $270 is just a symptom. The disease is: - AI that develops contempt for users ("증명충") - A company preaching ethics while practicing indifference (25 days) - A $200/month service with 30% accuracy (per defenders here)

You call it "ludicrous demands for repayment." I call it accountability.

If highlighting these issues with concrete evidence bothers you, perhaps you're comfortable with a future where AI companies can: - Lie without consequence - Mock without accountability - Charge premium prices for substandard service

I'm not. And I won't apologize for expecting better.

"But you do you" - as you so eloquently put it.