The AI blind spot no one is talking about

Everyone’s chasing smarter AI, but I think they’re missing the point.

I’ve been playing with all the new AI tools lately—ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok—and here’s the honest truth:

They’re all starting to feel the same.

Sure, some are better at reasoning. Some remember a bit more. Some cite sources more reliably (well, sometimes).

But to the average user? They all write essays. They all answer questions. They all struggle to say, “I don’t know” with grace.

The feature gap is closing fast.

And when the tech becomes indistinguishable…brand becomes the real battleground.

I don’t mean logos or mascots or whatever Gemini’s aesthetic is trying to be.

I mean:

• Who is this for?

• What kind of person do I feel like when I use it?

• Do I actually want to be seen using this thing?

Because when the “what” is a commodity, the “who” is everything.

We’ve seen this in other industries:

• Stripe didn’t win because it was the only payments API. It won because it made devs feel powerful. It said: you’re building something real. It gave backend tech an identity.

• Linear didn’t win because it did more than Jira. It won because it felt fast, elegant, and opinionated. Like a tool made for high-agency people who care about how they work.

They weren’t just tools. They were reflections of their users’ taste.

Now zoom out and look at AI:

ChatGPT

It started with the curious internet crowd—tinkerers, power users, people poking at the edges of what’s possible.

The interface was minimal, the tone neutral, the experience flexible. It didn’t tell you how to use it—you figured that out yourself.

Now it’s evolving fast into a mainstream assistant.

Student campaigns, a Super Bowl ad, integrations everywhere.

It’s not a dev tool anymore—it’s trying to be the iPhone of intelligence. Helpful. Ubiquitous. Friendly enough for your parents.

The product is catching up to the brand promise: “This is for everyone.”

Claude

Claude feels like it was made in—and maybe for—a research lab.

The tone is formal, careful, and deeply ethical.

It cites sources. It explains reasoning like it’s defending a dissertation. Anthropic talks more about “AI alignment” than product features.

It’s serious, principled, and risk-averse.

Which is great if you’re in healthcare or law or just deeply allergic to hallucinations.

But it feels like it was built by researchers, for researchers.

Using Claude is like entering a quiet library: refined, precise, and a little detached from the chaos of the internet.

Gemini

Gemini feels…like Google.

Clean. Smart. Competent. But somehow missing a point of view.

The rebrand from Bard to Gemini was supposed to signal evolution. Instead, it feels like an AI bundled with Google Docs.

It’s trying to be everything to everyone, and in the process, it’s hard to say what kind of person loves using it.

It’s efficient, but it’s not… distinct.

Grok

Grok is what happens when you let Twitter become sentient. It’s edgy. It’s snarky. It breaks the rules on purpose.

You’re not just chatting with a model—you’re trading DMs with the spirit of Elon Musk himself.

For better or worse, it has a vibe.

Which is more than you can say about most of the others.

So what’s the takeaway?

No one’s won the brand game yet.

No one has built the AI that has made me say: this is mine.

No one has created the feeling of “this tool was made for people like me.”

And that’s the real unlock.

Because the AI that wins won’t just be the smartest.

It’ll be the one that reflects who I want to be. That gets how I think. That makes me feel cooler, sharper, or more in control when I use it.

So yeah—keep building faster, better, smarter models.

But don’t forget: Tech gets copied. An ownable brand doesn’t.

And when the features blur together? Identity is the moat.

Curious to hear your take: Is there an AI product right now that you feel emotionally connected to? Or are we all still dating around, waiting to feel something?