ChatGPT 5.2 Falls Short of ‘Human Expert’ Claims With Basic Alphabet Test

OpenAI recently released ChatGPT 5.2, claiming it performs “at or above a human expert level,” yet the AI stumbled on a simple task of creating an alphabetized animal chart for children.

The Alphabet Challenge Reveals AI Limitations

On December 11, OpenAI launched ChatGPT 5.2 with bold claims about its capabilities, describing it as their “best model yet for real-world, professional use” with “significant improvement in general intelligence.” However, when tasked with creating a basic A-to-Z animal poster, the supposedly advanced AI model failed spectacularly.

The test, first conducted by BCA Research chief global strategist Peter Berezin, revealed glaring errors in both ChatGPT 5.1 and 5.2:

• ChatGPT 5.1 produced only 25 letters instead of 26
• It made absurd matches like “K is for Lion” and “O is for jellyfish”
• The newer 5.2 version still only identified 24 letters, missing “U” and “Z”
• 5.2 included bizarre illustrations like kangaroos with weird limbs and iguanas with two tails

Comparing AI Performance

When prompted again, ChatGPT 5.2 produced equally problematic results, including non-existent animals like unicorns and continued alphabet confusion. Similar tests with Google’s Gemini and Elon Musk’s Grok showed comparable or worse results.

This simple test highlights a significant gap between OpenAI’s ambitious claims and the actual capabilities of their latest model. While ChatGPT might outperform its competitors in generating animal posters, it still falls dramatically short of what any human with basic knowledge could accomplish.

The Reality Check

The alphabet test serves as a humbling reminder of AI’s current limitations, especially when contrasted with OpenAI’s declaration that 5.2 performs at or above human expert level. This comes amid reports of OpenAI committing $1.15 trillion to hardware spending in 2025 alone.

Despite massive investments and bold marketing claims, even the most advanced AI models continue to struggle with tasks that would be trivial for most humans, raising questions about the true state of artificial intelligence development and the gap between corporate hype and technological reality.