Why Utah Uses More AI Than California?

So…we have two major AI usage reports dropped on the same day from OpenAI and Anthropic.

I was curious, so I thought to put them side-by-side.

Both claim to be "economic indices." Both analyze millions of real conversations. And both accidentally reveal the same uncomfortable truth: the AI adoption metrics aren’t having a bright future, as they’d like to believe.

Here's what nobody's connecting yet.

OpenAI's data shows ChatGPT usage has shifted from 50/50 work-personal to 70% personal in just one year. This aligns with the MIT report released in August, which states that 95% of organizations are getting zero return on their $30-40 billion in GenAI investment. Zero. Not small. Zero.

Your dashboard might seem otherwise, why not?

Your team sends thousands of messages via chatbots. With all things considered, usage seems up and to the right. While yet another report (which I’ll also cover) found that 97% of consumer AI users won't even pay for it.

Turns out "adoption" is people asking ChatGPT for relationship advice at 2 am, not caring so much about the response quality, nor automating workflows.

Questions I plan to answer in this one:

• Is AI still the ultimate productivity tool?

• How many users actually paid for AI chatbots?

• Why is Claude Chat better positioned than ChatGPT?

• Why does Utah show a higher adoption rate than California? And what story does the 2025 gender adoption gap tell us?

• Are we funding productivity tools or expensive digital therapy bots?

This article tells a story that should make every leader pause before their next budget review and ask: Are we funding productivity tools or the world's most expensive emotional support chatbot?

Shall we?