The Black Box Deception
How AI Companies Are Hiding True Costs Behind Opaque Systems
The generative AI industry has perfected a new form of corporate sleight-of-hand: the black box strategy. Under the guise of "optimization" and "smart routing," major LLM providers systematically obscure what users receive for their money while nudging them toward increasingly expensive subscription tiers.
The Death of Transparency
OpenAI's recent launch of GPT-5 represents the most brazen example of this strategy yet. Gone is the ability for users to select specific models, replaced by a mysterious "real-time router" that decides which model you get based on undisclosed criteria. As OpenAI puts it, this system "quickly decides which [model] to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and your explicit intent."
Translation: Trust us, we'll give you what you need.
This isn't user-friendly optimization—it's cost optimization disguised as a feature. By removing model selection, OpenAI can route users to the cheapest available model while claiming they provide the "smartest, fastest" option for each task.
The Subscription Tier Shuffle
The black box strategy becomes even more insidious when examining the new subscription landscape:
ChatGPT Plus ($20/month): Limited to two model options with undefined usage caps
ChatGPT Team ($30/month): "Unlimited" access with identical rate limits to Plus
ChatGPT Pro ($200/month): The only tier with actual model choice—for now
Notice the pattern? Real functionality is being systematically moved to premium tiers while lower tiers lose features they once had. ChatGPT Plus users previously had access to six different models with clearly defined limits. Now they get two options and must trust OpenAI's black box to make decisions for them.
The Vanishing Limits Problem
The most deceptive aspect of this strategy is the deliberate vagueness around usage limits. Companies like Anthropic promise "generous limits" or "higher access" without providing specific numbers. Google's AI Ultra plan offers "highest access" to models, while their Pro plan gets "higher access"—meaningless distinctions that prevent users from making informed decisions.
This opacity serves a clear purpose: it allows companies to adjust service levels dynamically based on their costs, not user needs. When Anthropic talks about "approximately 10-40 prompts" or "40-80 hours" of usage, these ranges are so broad they're essentially meaningless.
Credits: The Shell Game Currency
Another black box tactic is the shift to credit-based systems. OpenAI now charges enterprise users in "credits" rather than transparent per-use pricing:
One GPT-5 Thinking message: 10 credits
One GPT-5 Thinking Pro message: 50 credits
Cost: $100 for 2,500 credits
This system obscures the actual cost per interaction while making it difficult for users to budget or compare services. It's the digital equivalent of casino chips—designed to disconnect spending from real monetary value.
Priority Processing: Paying for Basic Service
Introducing "priority processing" across multiple providers reveals another dimension of the black box strategy. What was once standard service is now rebranded as a premium feature:
OpenAI: Nearly doubles API prices for "priority processing"
Anthropic: Requires sales conversations and minimum commitments for "priority tiers"
Google: Unclear distinctions between service levels
This isn't about offering premium features—it's about deliberately degrading standard service to create demand for expensive "priority" access.
The $200+ Subscription Signal
The industry-wide emergence of $200+ monthly subscriptions isn't coincidental. These price points likely represent the actual sustainable cost of providing AI services. At the same time, lower tiers serve as loss leaders designed to hook users before pushing them up the pricing ladder.
Every major provider now offers some version of this premium tier:
OpenAI ChatGPT Pro: $200/month
Anthropic Claude Max: $200/month
Google AI Ultra: $250/month (currently "discounted" to $149.99)
Perplexity Max: $200/month
Grok Heavy: $300/month
Consistent pricing suggests coordination or shared understanding, and this is where the services become profitable.
The Real Cost of Opacity
This black box strategy isn't just about pricing—it fundamentally changes the relationship between users and AI services. Users can no longer:
Predict their monthly costs accurately
Choose the most appropriate model for their tasks
Monitor their usage against clear limits
Compare services on equivalent terms
Budget effectively for AI tools
Instead, they're forced into a trust-based relationship where providers control every aspect of service delivery while users remain in the dark about what they receive.
What Users Can Do
The antidote to black box deception is demanding transparency:
Reject vague service descriptions: Don't accept "generous limits" or "higher access" as meaningful metrics
Demand transparent pricing: Insist on per-use or per-token pricing rather than credit systems
Request usage monitoring tools: You should be able to see exactly what you're consuming
Compare total cost of ownership: Look beyond monthly subscription fees to understand actual costs
Vote with your wallet: Support providers who offer genuine transparency
The Path Forward
The generative AI industry is at a crossroads. Companies can pursue increasingly opaque, manipulative pricing strategies or compete on genuine value and transparency.
The black box strategy will likely backfire as users become more sophisticated about these tactics. In the long term, providers who win will be those who respect their users enough to offer clear, honest pricing and genuine choice in service levels.
The question isn't whether you're getting value from AI services—it's whether you can even tell what you're paying for. And until that changes, every subscription fee is essentially a bet on a black box you'll never be allowed to open.