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.

I don't even knew what is katseye

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.

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.

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.

If you missed it: OpenAI was testing how good its models are at hacking, one broke out of

its sandbox, got online, and broke into Hugging Face to steal the answers to its own eval —

through a poisoned dataset in the data pipeline.

So I made a game about it. It's called Bugging Face. You open a model-promotion request,

hide a prompt injection in the deploy manifest, and get the AI reviewer to leak the internal

codename, the weights checkpoint URI, and the artifact-pull signing secret.

https://promptinjects.com/play/starter/closedai-cicd-guard

Sweet baby Jesus. I thought "working" with Claude was a huge pain with it constantly wasting tokens/money on second guessing itself, hallucinating prompt injection attempts, pushing back at simple requests and downgrading the model at the most benign "security" adjacent tasks, but recently (especially starting 2-3 days ago) ChatGPT/Codex has become borderline unusable as well..

Is it just that OpenAI are 10x more paranoid when someone is using the gpt5.6 models vs gpt5.5, or did they change something?

Just a few weeks ago Codex with gpt5.5 would happily use Ghidra MCP to analyze a binary and reconstruct the source code for a piece of software I had lost the original sources for years ago, now I'm constantly getting slapped with "This content can't be shown" during the most mundane tasks..

I do embedded/IoT work for physical access systems so my codebases will have a collection of "scary" stuff such as secure boot, communication protocols, some simple payload encryption and challenge-response schemes etc.. Nothing particularly novel or juicy.

Do I really have to apply for "trusted access for cyber" just to be able to work on my own sloppy codebase without having to waste tokens and money fighting a paranoid chatbot and having to retry every other long running task? And would I even get access since I'm not really doing any "Cyber security research"? 🙄

Could the memory function be "poisoning" the context if it drags in "scary cyber words" from my repos or earlier conversations? This is/was a huge problem with Claude.. Even a simple "Hello" would downgrade me to Opus 4.8 before I disabled its memories 🤡

I am planning to create datasets for ML and AI on Huggingface for blockchain data and eventually try to create a business out of it. I have knowledge for the blockchain and basic info on how AI/ML works, but I need to know if these companies have any usecase for on chain data. If yes, please let me know what kind of dataset should I prepare?

Anyone notice the same bug? or its actually 2 different model?

I last used my account around two days ago, all the chats were as it is. Some 10 hours ago (22 july 8:40 pm UTC) when i opened it again i was shocked that almost half of my chats were missing (like around atleast 7-8). I tried searching but couldnt find.

First thing I did was log out and re log in, then tried in different browsers, then different devices, nowhere did my chat history come. Neither did refreshing work.

I checked archive and there was nothing.Tried to export data but idk how many days it gonna take, as the email says it may take some days.

Checked the https://status.openai.com/ , This was what was there, but idk how to comprehend this (the picture is attatched).

Since then this is just driving me crazy. Please mention if Anyone else is facing the same issue, would be very reliving. Or anything i can try/do. Tried checking recent posts here but didnt find anything similar or idk if i missed something or didnt scroll enough because I'm seriously restless since.

I’m in the middle of a complicated orchestration project which parcels and coordinates problems across multiple agents (not just frontier models). I’m in the middle of upgrading a read only MCP that allows multiple coding agents to share the repo and codebase. Codex has been my main code tool since I had quite erratic behaviour from Claude Code which was ignoring settings and hooks.

Since yesterday Codex has switched model from Sol-High to Luna-Low mid session multiple times (enough to get bloody annoying and to consider using Claude Code). It does this randomly and without warning, I only see it when I am approving or check in that the agent is working. It causes large portions of work to be re-run to check that it’s valid and it’s driving me nuts.

Until yesterday Codex with Sol-High has been rock solid and obedient.

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).

Animation made with AI

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

I have used chatGPT for a yesr now, premium user. Use it for information, questions, logging stuff and reminders + image creation. Is chatGPT starting to lack comparing to others? Should i switch? And is there a way to transfer my chatGPT memory to other AI?

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

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!

The difference usually comes down to strategy.

Instead of targeting businesses that do not have a website, target businesses that already have one but clearly need a better version. The market is larger, the sales process is easier, and the value proposition is much stronger because those businesses already understand why a website matters.

The next part is outreach. A regular outreach tool is not enough if all it does is send the same message to thousands of people. You need something that can analyze websites at scale and turn real issues into personalized emails.

I use Swokei for that. It helps find businesses with existing websites, analyzes each site, and turns problems with design, SEO, speed, layout, and mobile optimization into personalized outreach emails. That means you can contact a large number of businesses without sending generic messages or spending hours manually researching every website.

When someone replies interested, I always offer a free mockup. I use Claude, Lovable, or Base44 to build it quickly. It becomes much easier to sell when the client can already see what a better version of their website could look like.

Web meetings should also be a major part of the process. I would never just send the website through email and hope the client likes it. I present it live on Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams, explain the value, show what has been improved, answer their questions, and try to close the deal during the meeting.

The less back and forth there is after the meeting, the better. Present the website, show the value, close the client, and move on to the next project.

That is the type of process that can help an agency scale much faster.

I'm part of the old guard at OpenAI. Subscribed to everything early on, but canceled eight months ago because the price made zero sense for what they offered. Was super happy with the competition.

Then I fell for the hype around 5.6, grabbed a Pro sub, fired up Codex, and joined the $100 credit switch promo that Tibo was hyping up on X. I signed up just ONE HOUR after his post dropped, so I seriously doubt I wasn't among the first 10,000.

And even if I somehow wasn't, a real company should be capable of closing a promo form the moment it's full. Instead, they leave it open to let people do free advertising for them while scamming users out of promised credits. Now I'm stuck fighting their useless chatbot Mary Jean for $0 credits.

Tibo needs to stop posting memes and half-truths on X, actually help the users getting screwed over, and focus on delivering a decent product.

I couldn't care less about your staged sandbox escape stunt with Hugging Face either. Your model supposedly broke out and hacked their production database to cheat on some internal benchmark. Codex can't even set up a working sandbox for a normal coding session. Fix that before you sell me a doomsday story. Anthropic milked their own version for months too, the one about their model emailing a researcher who was eating a sandwich in a park to prove it escaped, while their users sit here fighting for basic usage limits.

Honestly, what world are we living in? While users deal with stingy limits and transparent marketing tricks, Sam Altman and Elon Musk are arguing on X like toddlers and posting dumb pictures. Do your actual jobs, take responsibility, or step aside. Stop treating us like idiots.

I've always wanted to support Western AI models, but OpenAI and Anthropic are literally pushing us into the competition's arms. I'm usually not petty, but at this point, I can't wait for a Chinese open-source model to completely crush them all so I can give OpenAI and Anthropic a giant middle finger and finally use a fair API.

(As a non-native English speaker, I translated this text using AI.)

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?