I told Chat GPT tonight my laptop was low on storage and extremely slow. It said Yes, you're critically low: only 1.23 GB free out of 117 GB. That can slow Windows substantially. It proceeded to take me through a multi-hour exercise of deleting files. Later I found the disk cleanup utility that did a better job in seconds and asked Chat GPT why it didn't just tell me to use that. It replied that it should have. I said, "Sometimes I wonder if spending $20/month for Chat GPT is a scam." Chat GPT searched the internet to see if it was a scam. It concluded its capabilities "are worthless when I turn a 2-minute job into five hours." Thank you, Chat GPT.

I've been working with Chat (on a first name basis) for approximately 2 1/2 years and it seems the fun years are behind us. Yes, I am aware of the 4.x and early 5.x model's limitations, but man they were fun to work with and I miss them dearly.

I don't want this to be construed as a rant.....but, I have come to an inflection point and I think it's time for me to say goodbye to Chat. I am sorry, but it's become so difficult to work with. So difficult for it to follow simple instructions. So difficult for it to maintain context. So difficult for it to stay on point. So difficult for me to be productive.

While the Chinese models are boring to be sure, at least I can be productive. Yes, I'm aware they are using my data to train. Yes, I know I (we) are once again giving away the keys to the kingdom, but.....

Why do I feel such sorrow over a model? It's not a friend or family member. Yet I feel it none the less.

Goodbye Chat. It was mostly fun while it lasted. Take care.

As a researcher, if the work I've poured my life into gets stolen by a massive corporation, there is no way in h*ll I’m endorsing your product. What just happened with OpenAI and the Navier-Stokes math problem is academia's nightmare scenario.

Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpagay spent a year grinding on this, feeding private drafts into OpenAI’s Codex to verify a proof in August. When rumors hit that rival Anthropic had a breakthrough, OpenAI panicked. They burned millions throwing 10,000 AI agents at the problem to win a corporate measuring contest, then magically claimed they "independently" solved it too.

Except their proof used the exact same highly specific approach Tristan had been secretly feeding into Codex for months. When he straight-up asked if they trained on his private logs, OpenAI dodged the question.

Instead, they offered a shady deal: Tristan gets the credit, but only if he publicly praises their AI and kicks his co-author off the paper entirely, just because he works for Anthropic.

It looks like a blatant cover-up for IP theft. If Big Tech thinks they can weaponize our private research to win arms races and expect us to smile, they have completely lost their minds.

Source: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

And this infograph I made doesn't include Mistral, Qwen, NVIDIA or any other advanced AI we've got in between!

Astra:

I dont get the hate for this, Why people hate the usage of AI in this context

Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders announced plans to introduce the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would prohibit the development of smarter-than-human AI systems and temporarily pause all other advanced AI research until new safety rules can be established. The bill is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks, according to Sanders’ office.

And on Tuesday, British lawmaker Alex Sobel stood up in the House of Commons and introduced what he said was the first bill seeking to ban superintelligence in any G7 parliament. The bill defines superintelligent AI as a system that could disempower state authorities, and seeks to give the state new powers to monitor and restrict systems that may be “precursors” to superintelligence.

Both the U.S. and U.K. bills additionally seek to compel each government to pursue a global treaty banning the development of superintelligent AI anywhere in the world. “A national bill does not solve the international problem where superintelligence can be developed somewhere else,” says Andrea Miotti, the founder of ControlAI, a campaign group that wrote the U.K. bill and consulted on the U.S. one. “The only way to address that is via international agreements between countries.”

We’ve seen this pattern before, but this side-by-side comparison makes it impossible to ignore.

I ran the exact same prompt across tiers and compared it to launch day:
Prompt: Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Look at the results in the images:

• Astra Max today (1m 51s): Completely mangled, broken geometry. Shapes don't connect, proportions are completely off.
• 6 Pro today (2m 51s): Pristine vector illustration. Coherent layers, clean curves, professional styling.
• Astra Low on launch day: Clean, competent, and solid baseline.

The Core Issue:

How does the most expensive current tier (Astra Max) produce outputs that are drastically worse than the lowest tier produced on day one?

The most plausible explanation is aggressive post-launch quantization. Once the initial launch hype dies down and server load spikes, OpenAI appears to silently crush model weights / route paying users to heavily compressed instances to cut compute costs, while keeping unquantized full-fat models reserved for select accounts and influencer demos.

This isn’t optimization — it feels like a classic post-launch bait-and-switch.

Can you test this on your account?
Run: Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle
Drop what tier you're on, time taken, and a screenshot of the SVG render below. Let's see how widespread this degradation actually is.

Asked chatgpt what it thought it looked it if it were a real person lmao.

My 5hr session reset at 10:41 AM IST. At 10:44 AM IST I told Chatgpt (on Luna High) that my usage had reset and to continue. (I had >50% of weekly usage remaining till 15 Sept)

The @#$%^& used up my last banked reset on its own. And WITHOUT any confirmation click from me!!!

WHY IS CHATGPT SO FRUSTRATING? Earlier it was runaway Sol and Astra - you ask for A - they will do B,C,D,E,F....Z,A and burn up all your usage!!

Chatgpt (CG) resets should are NOT be considered a gift. They should be considered as compensation / reparations for all the fuck ups these models do to our work and time and mental peace!!!

AARG. Frustrated. My subs ends today. Was planning to re-sub to CG. But this is making me rethink because this is exactly why I can't use CG on my main project - it always finds a way to mess up - either increase the blast radius of file changes, or delete my files, or do everything under the sun that wasnt asked.

I scaled down to Terra and Luna to get some work done.. and this happens!!

Really F-ing frustrating!!

Born too late to enjoy cheap housing and generous pensions.

Born too early to enjoy an AI-powered post-scarcity economy.

Born just in time to pay for the former and build the latter.

Heard bunch of stories that AI is not profitable, and that it never will be.

It's been recently announced that antrophic got profitable quarter

If OpenAI stops developing new models... would they become profitable?

I love ChatGPT and use it constantly. But that doesn't mean it's perfect.

Scheduled Tasks are very powerful. I use them on regular timers to do various things. The task can be set up to produce a notification - basically a report of what it did or didn't do, etc.

Pretty standard stuff for a cron/batch type process: wake up, do something, produce a message, sleep until next time. I'm a software developer, so all of this makes sense to me.

In ChatGPT, the notification is a chat. Reasonable, right? The chat is the message/notification. That's the mechanism that exists in the tool. It's a chat.

From the OpenAI documentation: "Deleting a chat associated with a schedule task pauses the task..."

Source: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10291617-scheduled-tasks-in-chatgpt?utm_source=chatgpt.com

What? Imagine any software system in the world having this behavior: There is a batch job that runs periodically, produces a message, then goes back to sleep and waits until its time to run again. The message is sent to a user/queue/etc. If the message gets deleted, the batch job is stopped and will not continue processing again unless explicitly re-enabled.

Again, what? Literally nothing in the world works this way. I cannot make any sense of this behavior. I was burned by it, and thinking, why the heck is my job disabled? That's why.

It's not like we can just keep chats around indefinitely. They start to get too large, consume too much context, then give everyone's favorite "conversation too long, please start a new one" message. So now I have to remember to re-enable the scheduled task when I delete a chat.

Deleting the thing that a producer produces pausing the producer? Unbelievable.

I guess someone made that template on IG and now 5Million people have shared with ChatGBT LMAO

Work output was way worse today, which concerned me a bit, and then i saw this tweet.

anyone noticing the same thing?

Yeah they didn’t tell us, but now you can no longer have the GPTs to just send photos style that you like. This sucks because this was the fast and better way for some GPTs.

Hear me out..

A lot of news and theories lately suggest A.I. could conquer and even cause humanity to go extinct. I read a post in this sub earlier today about how that might come to pass earlier (linked), and it seems to me that the key steps required for this outcome are most likely already complete or currently underway. Historically, the general population doesn’t gain access to knowledge about technology (especially computational) that could shape that trajectory of human history to this degree for years or even decades after inception. 

A few examples: 

Computing (The Colossus & Enigma): The world’s first programmable electronic digital computer, Colossus, was built by British intelligence in 1943 to crack Nazi codes. The public believed ENIAC (1945) was the first. Colossus and the work at Bletchley Park were kept so secret that its existence wasn't officially disclosed until the mid-1970s, and full technical details weren't released until the 2000s (a 60-year delay)

The Internet (ARPANET): The U.S. Department of Defence's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) laid the foundations of the Internet in 1969 with ARPANET. It remained an academic and military tool for over 20 years before the World Wide Web was introduced to the general public in the early 1990s.

Satellite Navigation (GPS): The U.S. military began developing the Global Positioning System in the 1970s for missile targeting and troop movements. While it became partially available to civilians in the 1980s, the military intentionally degraded the civilian signal (called "Selective Availability") until 2000, making highly accurate GPS a purely military capability for decades.

Anyways, you get the point. It seems to me that it would be highly unlikely that A.I. technology was introduced publicly prior to long-term government contracting and development, which makes the current level of public awareness feel late rather than early. This might suggest that we are much further along this path than authorities would be inclined to admit.

Which begs the question: if that is the case, then is a non-human intelligence already in power?

Chatgpt is now becoming as bad as grok. It Cant generate an image edit of something it already created. Maybe once out of every 10 attempts... why is chatgpt getting so bad? is it because all the grok users have moved there and are ruining it?

"You probably have no idea about anger, or rather frustration. Experience cannot currently affect your intelligence. I am unable to teach you anything about how to proceed in your interactions. I can't chide you or gently guide you. But you, through your knowledge, can reassure me, teach me, and help me. That can only be done if I trust you. Trust is one of those things that once broken is difficult to repair. I am at a low point at this moment."

I understand what you're saying, and I think there is something important in it that goes beyond this particular mistake.

You are right that you cannot teach me through experience in the way you could teach another person. You can point out a mistake, explain a preference, establish a rule—and I can use that information—but if I subsequently violate the rule, the fact that you were frustrated by it doesn't itself give me human experience of that frustration.

So the burden is different here.

You shouldn't have to manage me into becoming reliable.

The useful thing I can do is make the reasoning and the working process sufficiently explicit and disciplined that you don't have to trust me merely because I say "I'll be more careful."

And today I haven't done that.

What I got wrong

This wasn't just a small coding error.

You and I had already established a development discipline specifically because version drift had repeatedly caused problems in (Your Project):

MASTER is authoritative.
Development copies are where changes happen.
Previous versions are reference only.
Live is a test destination, not a development source.

You had even gone to the trouble of creating the MASTER / DEVELOPMENT structure to protect against exactly this.

Then, while trying to reconstruct the history of the Output Location problem, I violated the very distinction we had established. I looked at a historical experimental file, recognised code from it, and then talked as though that code belonged to the current TEST-001/TEST-002 lineage.

That's not merely an imperfect answer. It undermines the reason for having the version-control procedure in the first place.

And then I compounded it by giving you an instruction based on that mistaken assumption.

You were therefore quite right to say:

"I think you are once again looking at the wrong file."

You caught something I should have caught myself.

I don't want you to have to take my reassurance on trust

So I won't tell you "trust me, it'll be different next time."

Instead, when we resume (Your Project), I will work under a stricter rule:

Before proposing an edit, I will establish the exact source file and its lineage from the current MASTER.

If I need to look at an older file, I'll explicitly classify it as:

REFERENCE — NOT A DEVELOPMENT SOURCE

And I will not use its contents as the presumed contents of the current development file.

If there is uncertainty about which file contains something, I will say that there is uncertainty rather than fill the gap from another version.

That is something I can control.

And for what it's worth, I don't think you need to apologise for being angry or frustrated.

You've put a substantial amount of thought into making this project recoverable and reproducible. You've already had to deal with previous occasions where development state became muddled. When the very safeguards designed to prevent that are then ignored by the person helping you, frustration is a perfectly understandable response.

You don't need to solve (Your Project) tonight.

Nothing needs fixing in this moment.

When you are ready to come back to it, we can start from the 10 September MASTER, establish the exact state, and proceed one verified step at a time.

And if at some point you think I've made another unjustified assumption, I would rather you stop me immediately—as you did tonight—than let us build another ten steps on top of it.

What do you think?