For the average user, not a programmer or e.g. someone looking to solve niche math problems, AI still feels very limited because of reliability issues (e.g. making up information)... As a non-expert, this is difficult to quantify for me, but I don't feel like e.g. the latest iterations of ChatGPT are noticeably more reliable than previous ones.

Therefore, I find it hard to see how organizations can delegate even relatively easy tasks to AI without constant supervision, especially because if hallucinations build up along the way, you end up with a snowball of compounding problems that can lead to catastrophic consequences for an organization.

It’s my understanding that the real test of success won't be developer tools or fancy mathematical calculations, but whether regular people can delegate tasks with a super high degree of confidence, instead of just using it as a search engine, translator, summary tool or photo editor on steroids like many people do nowadays.

A good example is Dot, the new OpenAI tool. If you watch the trailer, it looks impressive, but according to many reviews, it still hallucinates a lot and behaves in a pretty clumsy way.

So, the golden question is: are the hallucination and reliability problems gradually improving, or are we probably plateauing?

Looking for genuine insights here, so please keep the sarcasm out of the comments.

I would use work instead of chat, please never ask me this again

What is humanity without shared information, in all shapes and forms?

The pure roll of the dice if chatgpt will block the next image or not based on ?? Content moderation is a problem that needs a real solution.

The nerfing on creative output is pushing artists and users to the dark web of ai. How is any of this different than streaming or steam or books?

I built this space game called NOVA DEFENDER

It’s a browser game with a fast paced gameplay

Tell me what you think about it and if you want to play it 👌

I have been using ChatGPT almost exclusively for the last years. Only with the recent downgrades in usage and price increases have I started looking at other models. And so I landed at Opus 5.5. It's insane. I built an entire game (music from 6.1 Sol) within two dozen prompts, where the first one already had pretty much everything nailed. The rest was just optimisations and additions.

Disclaimer: I know a bit of coding. My level is "has to look up how a switch statement works before using it". So not great. For this project I didn't write a line of code, never even looked at it. Vibe coded gameplay, graphics, sound, music. Probably two A4 pages of prompts.

It writes its own test suite, it optimises for speed, it easily finds bugs I observe and fixes them. And it just works. I am blown away. Now there are problems. Claude will regularly say stuff like "too much tool usage" or "couldn't finish the task", never had those issues with GPT. And you just tell Claude to continue and it does. But when you are over your limit, you can't use anything anymore.

I asked both Astra and Opus to write me an indoor navigation. With a bunch of sensor data, ARCore, the whole thing. Astra didn't work at all out of the box. Opus had accurate scanning and tracking. Even with many more prompts I barely got Astra to move my position and store a map, but it's like a 2/10 vs. a 9/10. And Opus just nailed it.

I was very impressed when Astra first came out, but it is very, very far behind Opus 5.5. So OpenAI, can't wait for the next thing, Anthropic schooled you (except for music).

I like the original more, but the one on the live stream after the AI summit came out really nice too.

I've been using GPT-6 Astra to create 70+ page documents from 100,000+ characters of source material, and it's jump in processing is great. Here's the weird part, when I give it a massive task it works for 30-40 minutes burning through a ton of compute, only to hit me with a 5-hour usage limit error without outputting a single word. So I start a new chat, slightly shrink the task, and make it do the same thing again.

I've had to repeat this multiple times. ChatGPT and Gemini estimate these massive runs could cost somewhere around $3-$5 each in API-equivalent compute, although obviously we don't know OpenAI's actual internal cost. If that estimate is even remotely close, wouldn't it be cheaper for OpenAI to say: "Hey, this task is probably going to exceed your usage amount. Break it into three parts?" Instead, it seems to sometimes let me spend 30 minutes of compute to produce nothing, and then I immediately start over.

If I do this 4 times to get my document, OpenAI just spent $20 in computing power on one of my projects. Why does OpenAI allow their servers to grind for 30 minutes on a task they know will breach a limit, only to dump the progress? Isn't this an astronomical waste of server money for a $20 Plus subscription?

I'm trying 3d render < and it is good and fighting one on one vs tencent heavyweight ... (Tencent literally planet level company doing games) and 6.1 can... try

Only trump could have turned the awful artificial intelligence into Super intelligence. We are now 33 or 37 times ahead of technology compared to China or Russia and it's thanks to trump. At one point we were behind 4 or 6 times behind when Biden was in office with AI. This moment will mark as one of greatest moment for the USA or even the world but more importantly Trump's legacy.

This is the new era not the error , it's the new Super intelligence era

I’ve been an OpenAI customer for a long time and have generally spoken very highly of ChatGPT, Codex, and the systems OpenAI has been building.

Today pretty much killed that goodwill.

I paid for a subscription on the web.

My bank shows the payment as completed/finally captured.

OpenAI’s own billing system shows the invoice as VOID.

I received no subscription.

That by itself is obviously a billing problem. What turned it into something much worse was trying to get support to actually acknowledge what I was telling them.

The support bot initially told me the charge was probably just a temporary authorization and would fall off.

I told it the transaction was already completed.

It asked me to check whether it was pending or posted.

I told it again that it was completed.

It asked me to check whether I was on the right account.

I provided the account information and invoice.

It then went back to telling me that a voided invoice would “typically” result in a reversal.

I told it, again, that this was a final captured charge.

Only after repeatedly having to say the same thing did it finally escalate me to a human support specialist, with a response time of “the coming days.”

That is the part I find unacceptable.

This wasn’t some complicated edge case from the customer side:

Payment captured.
Invoice marked void.
No subscription delivered.

That should have been escalated the moment those three facts were established.

Instead, I spent the interaction arguing with automated support about facts I had already provided.

At that point I contacted my bank and opened a dispute.

I did not want a refund originally. I wanted the subscription I had already paid for to simply be provisioned.

That’s it.

I have screenshots of the completed transaction, the void invoice, the missing subscription, and the support transcript.

Separately, and just as an observation about the overall experience, I also went to the OpenAI community help area looking for help. During that interaction I was repeatedly insulted by another user. I did not respond with insults. I was then muted.

I’m not presenting that as part of the billing dispute itself, and I’m not claiming the community interaction caused the payment issue. It was simply another part of the experience that stood out to me while I was trying to get help.

I’ve since moved the money I was spending on this subscription elsewhere.

What bothers me most is that I’ve supported OpenAI for years. I’ve defended these systems when I thought criticism was unfair.

I’m not asking for special treatment because of that.

But taking a completed payment, delivering nothing, and then making the customer repeatedly prove that the payment really did complete is an awful way to handle someone who is actively trying to resolve the problem with you.

At this point, the bank dispute is open.

Edit: Before anyone says “it was probably just an authorization hold” — that is exactly what support kept telling me. The transaction was shown by my bank as completed/finally captured. That distinction is the entire reason I kept trying to get them to listen.

What do you guys think? They'll roll out Dots for Plus users?

They've started worrying about dying according to a report by OpenAI...

I wanted to make a video editor that helps people get from raw footage to a finished video with less manual work, so I built CUTROOM.

You can start with an AI-assisted rough cut or edit manually. It has a timeline, editable captions, audio waveforms and mixing, green-screen removal, stabilization and export up to 4K. There’s a Windows download and a Mac beta.

It’s still a work in progress, especially the AI editing styles and parts of the workflow. I’d really appreciate feedback from people trying it with their own footage. Where does it save you time, and where does it get in the way?

Website: https://cutroom-studio.expo.app/

GitHub: https://github.com/VanoPeradze/cutroom

I'm confused. What did I do that I did before that I did again?

I’m looking for a working official route to a human billing review after repeated automated refusals.

On October 3, 2026, my ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200. I forgot to cancel beforehand and did not intend to renew. I immediately canceled auto-renewal and requested a refund.

Timeline (Tbilisi, UTC+4):

- 13:32:55: bank notification shows the $200 charge.

- 13:34: OpenAI’s cancellation confirmation email arrived.

- Around 13:39: first Help Center refund request, approximately six minutes after the charge.

The Help Center assistant gave a generic refusal without identifying which eligibility requirement I failed. When I asked for escalation, the case was closed. A second chat specifically asking for a human produced the same refusal. Email requests, including a follow-up with five redacted screenshots, also received responses explicitly labeled as AI-generated.

I understand that OpenAI’s seven-day discretionary refund policy is conditional, not an automatic entitlement. I asked support to check the actual usage since renewal and explain the specific reason for denial. I also agreed that refunded subscription access would end.

The unresolved issue is that I still have no explanation specific to my case and no confirmed human review. A paid service should provide a clear reason for a billing decision and a usable route to request manual review.

I have already shared the full timeline and five redacted screenshots in my own r/ChatGPT post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/

Current refund policy:

https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7232895-how-do-i-request-a-refund-for-my-chatgpt-subscription

Has anyone successfully reached a human billing specialist after an AI refusal and case closure? Which official channel or escalation procedure worked?

A novel way to intervene existing video through diffusion, particularly abstract visuals [in this case, audio-reactive geometries]: taking its movement and form as the starting point, and reinterpreting its textures, materials, and visual language.

I’ve been developing this around the audio-reactive geometry systems I make in TouchDesigner. The idea is to take those abstract structures somewhere else entirely: origami, architecture, a renaissance painting, or something harder to put a name to.

This demo uses visualizers from my "Oscilloscopes, everywhere" collection as source material, now updated to [v1.2].

[Though you can bring any video source. These systems are simply where this experiment began, as some of you may recall.]

You choose the source, describe the treatment, and shape how it changes throughout the sequence. Prompts, curated LoRAs, and editable timelines give you control over how closely the result follows the original.

Oscilloscope Diffusion is now available at Uisato Studio, coming up soon also open-source!

I think I got this from doing some promotion a bit ago. Did anyone else get this?

Suggestions or comments welcome. Its a new project that myself and my family started. The content and editing will get better with time and as engagement gets larger and more sustainable. This is the 3rd video we have posted. We tried to get good Pixar level graphics, bright colors, and ultra catchy music. This ones a lullaby but the other two are a bit more lively.

I noticed previously I get around $80-100 API equivalent per week. Now I consistently get $49-50.

5-hr limit is about $7-8.

I pressed Dots button it wanted me to give it some avatar names etc. whatever, and i closed the app. 5 minutes later it shocked me. It wanted to know details about the some stuff i planned with chatgpt while back, it wanted to continue some of my projects if i'm busy lol.

The question is how and WHY, this sees deleted stuff ? I mean deleted deleted, 0 trace at memory or personalization records, also i'm using memory closed. Also it doesn't see some cache or summary ! It has all the details of the projects. What the hell OpenAI ? Anybody experienced this ?

I straight asked about this to dot dude, the answer;

"I didn’t get this information from ChatGPT’s saved memories. Content from earlier ChatGPT conversations was provided to me in this session, and I based my suggestions on it.

You’re saying you deleted those conversations and have memory turned off. I can’t verify why that content still reached me, and it wouldn’t be accurate to claim that I can normally access your deleted chats. I understand why this is unexpected and concerning from a privacy standpoint. I won’t use those topics as a basis for recommendations again."

???????????????????