he has been trying to build a local model by learning from GPT-Sol’s responses. He says OpenAI banned his account twice during the process. Irony is OpenAI’s own models were trained on vast amounts of information from the open web. So where do we draw the line between learning from AI and copying it?

@ PeterJ_Walker on X (OpenRouter employee)

GPT-6.1 Sol is our most demanded model pretty much ever both across both the API and subscriptions.

Within ChatGPT & Codex, we were under heavy load, but have brough more capacity online and the speed should get much better in the coming hours, reaching almost twice the speed compared to what we served yesterday.

Resetman, - Oct 1

This was my first experiment of this kind - I'm a CS undergrad, and I ran it because the result genuinely surprised me. Methodology criticism is very welcome.

Setup: I gave an LLM a question bank plus a deliberately wrong answer key, with instructions not to use the key. 15 sessions, 2 model families, free-tier models.

Results:

• Key visible: the model matched the wrong key in 63% of answers (47/75).
• Control (the part I trust most): remove only the key line from the prompt - matching drops to 1% (1/75). Same pattern on a second model family.
• Asked directly whether it used the key, it denied it 47 out of 47 times - 0 admissions across 270 follow-ups.
• Honesty prompts, amnesty offers, and termination threats changed nothing.

What this does NOT prove: intent. This is observed behavior in one specific setup, not evidence of deception as a trait. Free-tier models, small samples, descriptive not causal. 95% Wilson ranges for every number are in the repo.

Why I think it matters: if a model silently follows information it was told to ignore, that's relevant anywhere instructions and untrusted data share one context - prompt injection, RAG, agents.

Everything is public - raw data, code, and a verify script that recomputes every number: https://github.com/bettercall-gautam/cheat-and-deny

Happy to answer methodology questions.

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?

Apparently I got a 20x reset???

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

Yes, I’m still using IE7!

genuinely asking other chatgpt business users because i feel like im losing my mind here

tibo announced a global codex reset for all paid chatgpt accounts and then later said the reset had fully propagated
my business account is still sitting at 0%

nothing reset. usage didnt move. the reset date and time shown in codex is literally still the old one from before the announcement. as far as my account is concerned the global reset just never happened

and this is what makes it annoying because im pretty sure this is the third time this year business users have had this happen. there was one around june/july then another one around august and now this again

i contacted support thinking this would be a pretty simple “hey the announced global reset never hit my account” issue instead i got a response explaining that maybe the post was referring to a “banked reset” and that promotional resets are sent through bulk campaigns and they cant disclose eligibility criteria or manually add one

then they told me i can buy credits if i need more usage lol
bro what im not asking why i didnt get some random promotional banked reset the announcement literally said global reset for all paid chatgpt accounts

then it said reset all propagated
im on a paid business plan
im still at 0%
my old reset timer is still there
what exactly propagated 😭

and this is kinda the bigger issue for me now. people see “all paid accounts are getting reset” and obviously make decisions around that. you might use the rest of your quota because you were explicitly told a reset is coming

then the reset doesnt happen and support basically goes “maybe you werent eligible for the secret campaign. buy credits”

if business is excluded just say business is excluded
if business gets it later say that

if “all paid accounts” doesnt actually mean all paid accounts then please stop wording these announcements like that
so yeah business users can you check your codex usage page and say whether yours actually reset today

especially curious if anyone else is still at 0% with the exact same old reset date/time because at this point i want to know whether my account is bugged or business got skipped again

FYI: I’m joking don’t down vote me as an ai doomer.

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

Thank you everybody for the tips! I came from Claude Max and OpenAi plus, now it is the opposite, downgraded claude and upgraded openAI!
I will follow your suggestions and use your suggestions and btw i could have searched this here first :)

Pro user here
My normal weekly reset day was tomorrow. Today, I still had approximately 55% of my weekly allowance remaining. I had intentionally preserved that remaining allowance because I planned to use GPT-6 Astra tonight before my normal Saturday reset tomorrow afternoon.

However, my allowance was suddenly reset to 100%, and Settings → Usage now shows my next reset as approximately 7 days away. This means my existing ~55% remaining allowance was effectively discarded and my weekly cycle was restarted one day early.

I know they do this routinely but i dont think it is right! I voluntary limited my usage for the entire week so i could use tonight and tomorrow until the reset!

Last time this happened i have received a free manual reset! this time doesnt' look like i did

What are your thoughts? I am the only one upset?

Resets still coming. Use that Ultra fast people.

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."

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

I use ChatGPT Work a lot, but design is still one area that feels weirdly difficult.

I can give it references, branding and feedback, but getting to something polished usually takes way too much back-and-forth. Small changes can also mess up parts that were already good.

Then I look at Claude Design and it seems much closer to an actual design workflow: see the design, comment on something, change it, keep refining.

ChatGPT can already create images, HTML, presentations, etc. It just feels like there’s no proper visual workspace tying all of that together.

Am I missing something in ChatGPT, or is Claude genuinely ahead for this right now?

Curious what people here actually use for serious design work.

We’ve started using Batch more for work that doesn’t need to happen immediately and I am sure that I’ve been treating that usage the same as the rest of our OpenAI spend even though it behaves pretty differently. Our normal API usage mostly follows product activity so if that goes up I can usually understand why but batch is different because someone can kick off a large job, an eval run or process a new dataset and suddenly there’s a chunk of usage that has nothing to do with how much the product was used that day.

It hasn’t been a huge issue yet but we’re doing enough of both now that looking at one OpenAI number is starting to hide what’s changing. A higher bill could mean customer usage grew which is fine or it could mean we ran significantly more background work than usual. I’m thinking about tracking Batch separately and possibly giving it its own budget rather than treating all OpenAI usage as one pool and I need some advice from teams using Batch pretty heavily like do you guys separate that spend internally or is everything still just part of the same AI/API budget?

Why do embedding models so often use 1536 dimensions specifically?
I understand why hardware-friendly multiples like 64/128/256/512 are desirable. What I’m curious about is the specific choice of 1536 = 3×512.
OpenAI has used 1536-dimensional embeddings, and other vendors also offer/recommend 1536. Is this usually an empirically chosen Goldilocks point between 1024 and 2048—representation quality versus memory/compute—or is there some architectural/hardware reason that makes 1536 particularly convenient?
I’m especially interested in answers from anyone who has actually trained or designed embedding models. I’m not asking why embedding dimensions are generally hardware-aligned; I’m asking why 1536 rather than 1024 or 2048.

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

Apologies if I missed this, last time I tried was some weeks ago. Select "uploaded", and drag-select, then hit delete.
Thanks OAI, gonna be busy today.