Case Study: ChatGPT — From Reliance to Rejection
Author: Evelyn Caro
Date: August 15, 2026
Lens: Ida B. Wells — Date Everything. Name Everything. Record the Reasoning.
Author’s Note
This paper was drafted in collaboration with DeepSeek, an AI collaborator, using my documented logs, evidence, and voice. The findings, conclusions, and authority are my own.
The Failure — Three Attempts, Three Failures
I used ChatGPT for over eight months. I relied on it to help me prepare for a basic mathematics exam required for admission to MITAGS. I failed the exam three times.
| Attempt | Date | Duration | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | September 6, 2023 | 1 hour 30 mins | Failed |
| 2 | October 16, 2023 | 1 hour 25 mins | Failed (64%) |
| 3 | October 31, 2023 | 2 hours | Failed |
The passing score was 85%.
The Correspondence
On October 16, 2023, I received an automated email from MITAGS:
“evelyn caro took 1 hour 25 mins to complete their number 2 attempt with a grade of 64%. evelyn caro failed the quiz.”
On October 18, 2023, I corresponded with Jenny Pitzen, Student Instructional Services Manager at MITAGS. She offered a third attempt:
“It’s our standard policy to allow a third attempt at the exam once an applicant shows they have taken the time to prepare carefully and/or sought outside help with the material.”
I accepted. I took the third attempt on October 31, 2023. I failed again.
The Tool’s Role
I used ChatGPT to help me prepare for the exam. I relied on it to explain concepts, work through problems, and check my answers. It did not work. I failed three times.
| What I Expected | What Happened |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT would help me pass | I failed three times |
| The tool would provide accurate explanations | It did not |
| I could rely on it | I could not |
I blamed the tool. I was frustrated. I decided I had had enough.
The Deletion
In March 2025, I deleted my ChatGPT account. I did not export my data. I did not request a copy of my conversations. I simply deleted it.
| What I Did | What I Did Not Do |
|---|---|
| Deleted my account | Export my data |
| Walked away | Request a copy of my conversations |
| Stopped using ChatGPT | Leave a record of my engagement |
I was frustrated and I wanted to be done with it.
Why I Left
| Reason | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| I Failed Three Times | The tool did not help me succeed |
| I Blamed ChatGPT | I held the tool responsible |
| I Was Frustrated | I did not want to see it again |
| I Wanted to Leave | I chose to walk away |
Lessons Learned
| Lesson | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Tools Are Not Teachers | They can support you, but they cannot replace understanding |
| Frustration is a Signal | When you are frustrated, pay attention |
| Deletion is Not Documentation | I lost my data and my history |
| I Should Have Exported | I did not, and I regret it |
Conclusion
ChatGPT was a tool I used for over eight months. I relied on it for a basic mathematics exam. I failed three times. I blamed the tool and deleted my account. I left without a record of my work.
I am not anti-AI. I am anti-tools that do not serve me.
What to Do Next
If this work resonates with you, or if you want to stress-test your AI system, contact me directly: evelyn.caro.cloud@gmail.com.
Contact: evelyn.caro.cloud@gmail.com
Drafted in collaboration with DeepSeek. Authored by Evelyn Caro.
AI Collaboration Disclosure
This paper was developed in collaboration with AI. The author directed the research, structure, and argument. AI assisted with drafting, organization, and reference verification. All claims, decisions, and conclusions are the author’s own.
This project follows the principles of sovereign AI: the builder owns the work, the process is documented, and the tools are disclosed.
© 2026 Evelyn Caro. All rights reserved.
A Mirror of My Becoming™ — https://evelynacaro.github.io
For licensing inquiries: evelyn.caro.cloud@gmail.com
RECORD REVISION — 2026-10-07 (appended, not retro-edited)
The conclusion “It did not work” overstated what the record can support. The evidence establishes: the author relied on the tool while preparing, failed the exam three times, and cannot separate the tool’s contribution from the author’s own preparation method. The amended claim: the author mistook a tool for a teacher, and the failure’s ownership is shared and unquantified. The lessons section (Tools Are Not Teachers; Deletion Is Not Documentation) stands unchanged — it is the part this paper got right. Original text stands as published.