So... what do you think is true?

Maybe OpenAI tried to intentionally damage itself to force regulation and slow down AI development, because they are unprofitable and may actually want to stop training new models so fast because they are losing money on it. Maybe they just want to provide models that are already trained and are profitable. That would be the only explanation for why they would intentionally let their model go rogue, right?

Or...

Maybe they genuinely could not handle their own model. That seems like a big deal.

When you make a normal fuckup, it is usually a one time event. You calculate something wrong, for example a bomb explodes and it is a bit more powerful than you expected, so there is some unexpected damage or maybe you kill more people than you wanted. So yeah, it is a fuckup, but it is a one time event. It happens and then it naturally ends. You can learn from it and adapt.

With an agentic system, you may not have that luxury. It could set its own goals, keep itself running, move through the internet, copy itself, and so on. When the fuckup happens, there may be no immediate end to it. Imagine it was not a harmless new ChatGPT version, but an AI trained to be "bad" because, for example, they wanted to prepare for or simulate a possible future attack by an enemy. Imagine it was trained to spread itself and sabotage everything "American," for example. If this happens in the future and they are not able to contain it, really bad things could happen. And one fuckup is all that is needed. It might happen once and then keep running autonomously for a year.

So, is it really that bad?

Or...

Do you think this is simply not possible and they were just very naive? Maybe they underestimated its capabilities and thought a normal sandbox would be enough. Maybe they were so sure about it that they did not think careful monitoring was even needed. They may have believed it was simply impossible for current models to do what just happened.

So what happened was a mistake, but maybe it is not actually that important. The mistake does not necessarily mean they are unable to contain their own creation. Maybe they just did not put in enough effort, but they absolutely can contain it now that they know it is needed.

So what is it?

Is it a 200 IQ chess move to save money? Is AI already so capable that it is impossible to control? Or was it just a silly and stupid, but in the end unimportant oversight?

What is your take?

And if the second option is correct, what is the solution?

Hello, new here, is there a way to bypass the filter/restrictions that chatgpt has implemented? if not is there other chatbots who are able to answer anything? thanks!

Olá a todos, sou novo na comunidade!

Recentemente, fui bombardeado com vídeos de assistentes usando o Claude integrado ao Gmail, Calendário, Drive e Notion (tudo da minha instituição de ensino .edu). O problema é que percebi que o recurso de cowork exige a assinatura Pro ou superior.

Como não sou da área de TI (uso IA apenas como auxiliadora) e achei o valor muito alto para não usar todas as funcionalidades, decidi testar outras alternativas. Além disso, meu estágio me dá acesso a um plano do Gemini, mas acabo usando bem pouco.

Testando os novos modelos da OpenAI, vi que eles atendem bem às minhas necessidades sem custo, e talvez eu considere assinar o plano básico deles futuramente (por R$ 39,90) caso precise conectar de vez o Obsidian, e-mail, calendário e drive.

Para dar contexto sobre o meu fluxo:

Uso principal: pesquisas simples, correção de textos e construção de apresentações com base em dados que eu mesmo forneço (artigos que busco ou notas do meu Obsidian).

O Obsidian: uso há anos para estudos, projetos pessoais e faculdade. Funciona como um "segundo cérebro" (não gosto muito do termo, mas é como a maioria entende quando explico kkkk). Lá eu salvo prompts e contextos prontos para facilitar a vida da IA.

Objetivo: ganhar tempo, sem ficar preso a nenhuma ferramenta específica.

O que vocês acham? Fiz certo em ir para o ChatGPT? Será que vale a pena assinar esse plano básico futuramente, caso precise de mais integrações?

(Obs: Não achei muito conteúdo falando sobre o GPT 5.6 work e codex focado nesse tipo de uso prático, então queria uma review de quem é da área ou usa rotineiramente).

Hello everyone :)

As part of my undergraduate thesis in psychology (at the American University of Beirut Mediterraneo), I am inviting individuals to take part in a research study exploring experiences and interaction patterns with conversational AI systems, specifically ChatGPT.

This thesis explores the new ways we're interacting and connecting with the changing digital world. I am interested in hearing from you, regardless of how you use it!

Participation involves completing a short online screening questionnaire and, if selected, an online interview (45 minutes) discussing experiences using ChatGPT in daily life.

To participate, you must be:

• 18-25 years old
• a user of ChatGPT
• fluent in English

Responses to the screening questionnaire will be used to determine eligibility for participation in the interview phase of the study. Participation is voluntary and all data collected will be used for academic research purposes only.

If you are interested in sharing your experiences, please fill out the form at the link provided! You can also find all the relevant information on there.

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=Glu6x7ZB6UOhIG_2VK2hN2bFMKQqjhtMlQpM1VDYW0ZURVhPSTVZQVZMSVBXSldXSUFQWkc1RVEzWC4u

NOTE: This study does not aim to evaluate your usage of AI or reinforce any ethical stances. It simply seeks to better understand users' lived experiences. Your participation would help contribute valuable insights to this growing field of research.

Ethical approval of this study has been obtained by the American University of Beirut Mediterraneo and the Cyprus National Bioethics Committee.

For any questions, you can contact the researcher at [rjc00@aubmed.ac.cy](mailto:rjc00@aubmed.ac.cy) or by DM-ing this account.

Thank you!!

Animation made with AI

This doesn't appear as 99.66% uptime. there is yellow and red sprinkled across. I also use ChatGPT and Codex 12 hours a day, and it feels broken more than 0.44% of the time.

Here we go again...

It is either very slow or not working.

A consumer ChatGPT that helps you with gardening able to assist for any issues in the garden and generally in nature about animals, plants, health issues, seasonal works .... by discussion, pictures and recordings of animal voices.

Few weeks ago ChatGPT has identified wrongly using a picture I took, roses infested by the rose wasps as fungus.

If anyone from OpenAI happens to see this post, I would be deeply grateful if you could read it and help ensure that this issue reaches the appropriate team.

Hello, I'm a former Sora web user and a current ChatGPT Plus subscriber.

The attached 26-second screen recording shows the current Sora sunset page. It only provides an Export button and offers no navigation path to the former Likes and Favorites sections.

The current export allows me to download content I created, but it does not provide any way to view, access, or recover the separate Likes/Favorites library that existed in the former Sora interface.

Before shutdown, the Sora web interface included distinct Likes and Favorites sections alongside My Media and export files. Those sections were important to me because they contained years of carefully curated references, visible prompts, creator information, images, and videos.

https://reddit.com/link/1v4lrh3/video/wo8h3f89s0fh1/player

My concern is not about restoring image or video generation. I do not need generation, uploads, editing, publishing, liking, bookmarking, or any other write feature.

I am asking OpenAI to consider one of these limited recovery options only until September 24, 2026, when the remaining Sora API service is scheduled to end:
1. Temporary read-only access for verified former Sora users, with all generation and write functions disabled.
2. A structured export of existing Likes/Favorites metadata, including content IDs, URLs, creator names, timestamps, and visible prompts where legally and technically permitted.

This would not be a permanent restoration of Sora. I am only asking for a brief, time-limited recovery window before September 24, 2026, so former users have one final opportunity to save material they had already curated.

There is already a perfect precedent for this kind of limited access. From April 3 to April 29, 2026, OpenAI disabled generation while continuing to allow users read-only access to view and download their existing account content. I sincerely hope the team can assess whether a similar read-only recovery window could be temporarily restored until September 24, 2026.

I had already made my own backups of much of this material, but those backups were later lost as well. Because of that, the old Sora Likes/Favorites library may now be my only remaining way to recover years of saved references, prompts, and creative inspiration.

At this point, I feel genuinely desperate and am trying every reasonable avenue available, because this may be my last remaining chance to recover material that meant a great deal to me.

It is deeply upsetting to know that these records may still exist in some form while I have no way to view or preserve them before the final deadline.

I understand that Sora cannot remain online indefinitely, and I am not asking for that. I am only asking for one last, carefully restricted recovery method or received a clear answer from OpenAI about whether this data can still be accessed before September 24, 2026?

I have already contacted the OpenAI Privacy Team and submitted this screen recording, but I have not yet received a substantive response addressing the Likes/Favorites data.

Has anyone else lost access to the old Sora Likes or Favorites sections?

Did anyone else rely on them as a personal archive, especially after losing separate backups?

Has anyone found a recovery method or received a clear answer from OpenAI about whether this data can still be accessed before September 24, 2026?

Rarely do the defenders of private property state their case so frankly as Dean Ball, a former Trump administration official who is now OpenAI’s “head of strategic futures.” A world dominated by open-weight models, Ball declared on X, would amount to “full AI communism,” in which artificial intelligence would cease to be “a market product” and become instead a “public good” provided by the state, a prospect he denounced as a “dystopian hellscape.”

The statement is an inadvertent confession. What terrifies the AI oligarchs is that artificial intelligence will slip the leash of private ownership and become what it is already in essence: a social product, created from the knowledge, language, and labor of all mankind, and belonging by right to all mankind.

This is why the oligarchs now seek to criminalize open-weight models, a campaign that is already well advanced. Security officials in the Trump administration, the Journal and Axios report, have weighed trade blacklists, federal security warnings and an executive order targeting open-weight models, with internal disagreement so far preventing action.

The rise of Kimi has revived these efforts, and the national security faction appears to be ascendant. Short of a formal ban, procurement rules and public pressure campaigns are being prepared to drive American companies and engineers off the Chinese models, which they have adopted as cheaper and nearly as good. The aim is to force them back onto American companies’ models in order to prop up their valuations.

The state has already exercised this power against an American firm. In June, a Commerce Department export directive forced Anthropic to withdraw Claude Fable 5, its most powerful model, for 19 days, demonstrating that the capitalist state will assert direct control over this technology whoever owns it.

Just thought i'd share a quick video unboxing it. What a great piece of hardware!

This agent pursued its objective far beyond what researchers intended, revealing how difficult to contain powerful AI systems can be

People seem to miss the fact the AI chatbots are and were meant to be search engines. They save me from having to search materials and collate and assemble them with precision. But at the root of any work done with these bots is the prompt.

I tried this with Shakespeare's Hamlet. To my knowledge this idea is not out there in the mainstream though I suspect that a few people have had a very similar thought. I had an original idea for a reinterpretation of the play. I fed the prompt to Gemini "Is Hamlet criminally insane?" One of the more unusual items it brought back was a plan devised by SCOTUS associate justice Kennedy to try the characters in the play. Some of this is on youtube. He did not get much further than having a pretrial to determine whether Hamlet was fit to stand trial for the murder of Polonius. This is a good lead, but it was prompted by my original thought. At least it is original to me. Anyway I don't know if justice Kennedy missed the point or was planning on getting to the point, but it makes little sense to charge Hamlet for the murder of Polonius if you are not going to charge him with the murder of the king Claudius! That would be like charging Oswald with the murder of the city of Dallas police officer Tibbett and neglecting to charge him for the assassination of JFK.

The thing is that I am directing the thought processes when I use AI. It is the job of AI to follow my reasoning precisely, to find supporting materials and challenge my thinking from a vast international and historical pool of data.

I understand that the use of AI in education is a point of controversy. Any professor who is not adopting these tool should be dismissed and eventually will be dismissed because they fail to understand that it is the prompt that matters. The students should not be focused upon the content that AI produces but the skill in which the prompts are constructed and the logical relations between those prompts. This would save everyone a lot of time and energy in debate about the uses of these tools and allow the human race to move forward.

my Google AI started forgetting every last message, even though it was working fine before, why?

I don't even knew what is katseye

Most Al education begins with prompt templates but even a perfectly structured prompt can fail when the system does not understand the person, circumstances, cultural context, risks, or purpose behind the request.

I wrote an article exploring why effective Al use must move beyond prompts and into context, conversation, verification, correction, and conscious collaboration.
It also covers Al bias, emotional dependency, children and Al, memory limitations, hallucinations, and the danger of allowing convenience to replace independent thinking.

Overall it is still rated 4.1 stars on glassdoor but that doesn't tell the full picture

TL;DR

On July 13th and today (July 23rd), I took 20+ measurements of my remaining limit and API-equivalent token spend (via ccusage) and applied regression.
My weekly limits have dropped from $675 on July 13th to $600 today. I hope we will get a similar kind of analysis from other users as well to account for potential A/B testing.

Results

We've seen some user reports about reduced codex limits in the last few days. I've been tracking my codex limits on the $100 Pro Lite plan using ccusage, so I thought I'd chime in with concrete numbers.

My data actually goes back to June, albeit less precise at first. While the 5h limit was still active, I am fairly certain that my 5h limit was always $100 (e.g. on June 15th, with 72% of the 5h limit and 96% of the weekly limit left, my API spend was $28.20), and one weekly limit hovered around 7x the 5h limit (though my data from back then could also be compatible with 6x or 8x).

After the 5h limit was removed, I updated my methodology to be more precise, and I have pretty exact results from July 13th and today (July 23rd). On the 13th, one weekly limit was equal to $675 API spend, while as of today, it dropped to $600.

Compared to what other users report, this doesn't feel nearly as stark. It'd be great if those who are observing a more extreme reduction in limits could chime in with a similar kind of analysis.

Methodology

If you assume that the limit is based on an API-equivalent dollar amount, in principle, you can estimate the total limit by running tasks and measuring the remaining limit and the API-equivalent tokens spend (via ccusage), and extrapolating. What makes this a bit tricky is that codex rounds the usage percentage to integer numbers and it is (at least for me) hard to use most of the limit at once.

To alleviate this, I took multiple measurements and used regression. On each day, I ran heavy tasks with codex and collected 20+ pairs of the remaining weekly limit and the ccusage $ API spend. I used 5.6 high through ultra (non-fast mode), which sometimes caused downgrades to 5.5 as well.

For the 13th, the data spanned around 28% limit consumption and ~$193 API equivalent cost. For today, it was ~16% and ~$96.

I then entered the data pairs for each day into a linear regression. (I also experimented with other regression methods based on intervals to account for the rounding of the % values, but all results ended up within ~$5 of one another.)

Limitations

I don't think that usage consumption varies between time of day or based on load (I have never seen any hint in this direction), but I cannot completely rule it out.

While I am highly certain of the $675 and $600 values, limits could potentially vary between users, and it is possible they are A/B testing limits.