I think its a valid complaint. Who wants to constantly spend overhead on maintaining what's current without clear definitions and adding uncertainty to your tooling. It's a total PITA.
Then don't? I don't think it's a valid complaint at _all_.
It's totally fine to just pick one tool (chatGPT, Claude, Gemini) and just use whatever the best default they allow you to use. You'll get 90% of the benefits and not have to think at all.
AI is new and developing at breakneck pace. You can't complain that you want to get bleeding edge without having to do research or change workflows.
That's already unrealistic for "normal" fields. It's absurd to expect for AI.
We diverge on opinions here - most peoples workflow doesn't revolve around the current distinctions between AI. Having to incorporate that into their workflow is a PITA - I understand some people live off that and thats their bread and butter. Good for them for finding their competitive advantage. For every other builder out there who builds instead of integrates the newest AI model - its a PITA.
Then don't? Seems like a weird thing to complain about.
I just use whatever's available. I like Claude for coding and ChatGPT for generic tasks, that's the extent of my "pick and compare"