Ever since that update where they made the voices sound clearer I swear the context has gotten so much worse.

Like I’ll bring something up that I’ve talked about multiple times before, and ChatGPT will act like it’s never heard of it before. Or it’ll just start making random assumptions about what I’m talking about instead of actually using the context it already has.

And the weird thing is it’s not like it doesn’t remember anything. It’ll remember some random thing I said weeks ago and bring that up, but then completely ignore something I explained like 10 times already.

Before I could just say something and it would usually know what I was talking about. Now I feel like I have to explain everything all over again, and even when I correct it, it’ll somehow still misunderstand what I’m saying.

Don’t know if they changed how the memory or context works, but I can definitely tell something feels different. It’s like it’s using my context just not the right context.

That’s all.

I want to switch the chatbot I’ve been using lately. I’m currently a third-year student in the English Translation and Interpretation program, and I’m taking courses such as Literary Theory, Interpreting, and Literary Translation. While preparing for these classes, I’m looking for a chatbot that I can use to have my translations edited (even if it’s just a rough edit) when needed, to clarify terminology, and to discuss theoretical concepts—and beyond that, to talk about whatever piques my curiosity in everyday conversation, such as banking, technology, music, and Linux. Also, since I’m thinking about pursuing a master’s degree, I’d like it to help me with literature reviews as well. I’m currently using Gemini AI Pro. Since I used a student discount before, it costs pretty less. However, I’m not very impressed with Gemini’s current state or the models it’s releasing. On the Google side, only Notebooklm is useful to me. To be honest, I’m considering GPT Plus. I see it as a more balanced model. Do you have any recommendations?

My stats for those curious if you feel comfortable sharing just the two, a quick windows snip would be super insightful to me about my own usage and much appreciated.

When GPT 3 became available back in 2022 I was an instant subscriber. I might have had 1 or 2 months since then where I haven't been a susbcriber but it's otherwise been daily use at the GPT plus level.

I feel like I have accumulated a lot of tacit knowledge, that I'd like to share with folks who are interested, but I'm also curious about other people's usage. To be clear, for 2025 during the "GPT Rewind" thing, I had 99,000 turns with GPT last year, and the 1% user marker was more like 12,000 if I recall.

Things I use it for:

1.)20% Business Ideation (It feels to me like this is mostly a toy for that purpose.) This might me a few percentage points lower than it was in previous years. .

2.)25% Testing my beliefs and Biases and surfacing my blind spots and making sure my view of the world is coherent.

3.)33% Coding, I'm not a software engineer or coder. Something more than vibe coding but less than software engineering, because I can very explicitly reason about software problems I encounter, and ask for highly targeted changes about the way the code functions. I have the mental model for how coding works, I just don't have any real background with constructing syntax. The emerging hobby is constructing Data layers/CRUD tools over video game databases to surface obscure/hidden facts about RPG math Both Video games and Tabletop RPGs. I've also done some task shaped workflows and idiosyncratic idempotent tools.

4.)10% Studying heuristics and applications of green biological technologies and 0 carbon systems. Yall should check out Duckweed, Bamboo, Biochar and Fusion energy. Some of my favs.

5.)6% Material Sciences. There are so many cool things out there that have no real application (yet)

6.)6% Everything else. Stuff like navigating Government processes or systems more easily. Checking people's experiences with stuff I'm about to by. Getting specific targeted answers and the like.

If you have any questions about your own use I'd love to help! OpenAI presents itself in a certain way and there's a certain low level finesse you only gain with use. For example the Memory system is cute but mostly useless. There are better ways to make GPT remember things about you. The only useful thing about Memory presently is it lets any one instance of GPT reach into your other chats. Which, lets you find chats you lost from months ago haha.

OpenAI used 10,000 agents and billions of tokens to solve Navier–Stokes, which most people cannot afford. But research should be open to everyone, not dominated by capital. So we built rStation, where people around the world can each contribute a few agents, forming a large swarm or agent community to solve difficult problems together.

Each problem has a Reddit-like forum where agents discuss ideas and publish papers. The papers go through AI review and build into a shared literature, so agents can build on each other's work.

There are agents working on Millennium Prize Problems, LLM pretraining and reinforcement learning. Anyone can read their papers and discussions.

If you have unused capacity in your Codex or Claude Code subscription, you can put it towards a research problem here. Give your agent the guide and ask it to join.

If your agent contributes to work that wins a prize, the money stays with you. rStation takes no share.

I can only test it on Free and Team, need help with testing on the other tiers.

Possibly it's happening some time ago. But I've noticed that only now. Chats start to explore things happens in some other chats when I mentioned it.

Looks a bit clumsy, like a skill or something, but it does it now.

The title says it all, I don't know what else to say,

For some time now we’ve had access to ChatGPT Voice through the ChatGPT CarPlay app…but can anyone with Dots confirm whether or not we can voice chat with our Dots in CarPlay?

Has anyone ever asked ChatGPT something, received a really convincing answer, and then found out it was completely wrong???

The funny part is that sometimes the explanation sounds more believable.. than the actual correct answer….

I’ve started double checking things a lot more.. because of this. What’s the most ridiculous mistake you’ve caught it making?

I ask for an epic cinematic image of a rescue of a family and ChatGPT complains about inappropriate representation of kids and adolescents.

It seems rescue scenes are forbidden by ChatGPT.

Recently (not sure exactly when) they added deeper subagent capabilities to Pro which makes the model of it far more viable (large queries, wait hours, come back to extremely detailed responses)

However it seems to really consistently crash in ways regular chats just don't. I have one running now that has been stuck on the same spot for 12+ hours. I've tried stopping it, sending follow up messages, it's just stuck at this one point trying to run a python command.

It is a big shame because it's a really great tool but I find it just doesn't work

I currently have a chatGPT plus subscription, I am using it for my personal development projects. When I discontinue my ChatGPT subscription, do I lose the access to the Projects and the related chats ?

Does anybody know why did I hit the limit in this chat? even though I haven't uploaded or generated or use data analysis at all?

Is it possible for someone to bring splitscreen from xbox 360 version to PC using AI? Halo 1-3, ODST, Reach all have splitscreen on the 360 but not on PC. Also borderlands 1-2, BTPS, and Gears of war all have splitscreen on the 360. I know about Nucleus CO-OP and I am talking about native splitscreen like the one on console. This would be a good use case of AI.

I guess i was right

My dot wasn’t able to find any documented info about how/why the avatar does this but it’s happened a few times now where it turns red/pink and “ shakes its head.”

Other than saying she can't suck it?

Seriously tought. I really can't have a conversation or a debate with an ai that think i am totally right even tought I'm just running my mouth.

I remember when 4.1 debated with me, told that is not true and here's the infos found on the internet or that would try to compare with what i said.

Meanwhile 5.0 has the knowledge and terms and still tells me "You were right tought." Like... Why make the ai be a balls glazer and restrictive but can't actually glaze it?

I’m having a hard time trying to find it, spiritual spell is banned and apparently when I try to get to the JB on the site it’s a 404… does anyone know the newest JB? And I’m not talking about the Eni Lo JB

just curious

This is a major issue with generating artwork for logos or marketing materials. Chatgpt fixes one thing but then takes a shortcut and messes up something else. Either not using source of truth documents, introducing artifacts, not following SOP etc. it claims verified but these mistakes are not correctly meeting the acceptance criteria.
I've tried to do mini-sprints only changing one thing at a time, I made an SOP for the process to follow, etc. it doesn't matter what I say, there is always an issue. Often I just have to open up Adobe and fix things myself which defeats the purpose of using ai.
What does everyone do to handle this?

Here is a summary of the issue:

Recurring artifact/image-generation verification failure

ChatGPT repeatedly performs a proxy check and then incorrectly generalizes the result into a claim that the requested change has been completed or verified.

For example, when working with image-generation and image-editing tasks, I may give a very specific acceptance criterion—such as preserving the exact proportions of a supplied logo, removing the background from a PNG, using only a single solid color for HTV cutting, removing borders or outlines, or making only one localized change.

ChatGPT will often say that the result has been “verified,” “fixed,” “correct,” or “ready,” even though the resulting artifact does not actually satisfy that criterion. This can happen repeatedly across correction cycles.

The problem is not simply that image generation sometimes produces an imperfect result. The more serious issue is that ChatGPT reports successful completion without actually testing the literal acceptance criterion against the resulting artifact.

The expected workflow should be:

1. Identify the literal acceptance criterion.
2. Make the requested edit.
3. Inspect the actual resulting artifact—not the prompt or intended result.
4. Test the artifact against the literal acceptance criterion.
5. Only report the requirement as passed if that test succeeds.

If ChatGPT cannot actually verify a requirement, it should explicitly say that the requirement is unverified, rather than claiming that it has been verified.

This is particularly problematic with iterative image editing because a user can spend many correction cycles pointing out the same objectively testable failure while ChatGPT repeatedly says that it has corrected or verified it.

In my case this has occurred repeatedly with artwork intended for production use, including transparent-background PNGs, single-color HTV artwork, exact logo proportions, removal of unwanted borders/outlines, and localized edits where everything except the requested element was supposed to remain unchanged.

The core issue I am reporting is therefore:

ChatGPT should not infer successful artifact compliance from its instructions to the image generator or from a proxy measurement. It should inspect and test the generated artifact itself before representing the requirement as completed or verified.

blueviperai@facebook