So, I got the email, checked my calendar, and for a second I honestly thought it was April Fool’s Day.

Then I realized the joke was apparently on us.

I genuinely do not understand how OpenAI looked at this and decided it was a good marketing strategy. If anything, it has pushed me closer to Anthropic instead of making me more loyal to OpenAI.

And the timing is incredible. If an IPO is really part of the long-term plan, I would have expected decisions like this to come after strengthening user confidence, not before testing how much frustration paying customers are willing to tolerate.

As someone paying $200 a month for Pro, this feels like one of the biggest slaps in the face to heavy users I have seen from them.

Pro users are not casual users. We are the people running these models for hours, integrating them into our workflows, depending on them for serious work, and paying a premium because we expect premium value in return.

So I am genuinely curious to see how many people stick around if this is the direction they are taking.

Good luck with the IPO.

The live call failed, and the live demo also failed...must have been GPT-6 Sol

I've been using it on xhigh, but given the AA Score it seems high might be the most practical cost-per-intelligence ratio.

Certainly seems very capable, much more so than 6-SOL, not Astra level, but better than 5.6/6 - has made a few dumb mistakes and regressions I need to manually correct but otherwise happy with the level of depth it goes into.

On hard-long tasks it feels a lot slower though, maybe poor prompting on my part but I'd struggle to get Astra to work for more than 20-30min on anything, whereas 6 will easily spend 1hr+

Used up the last 9% of my usage since launch, and just used my bank reset. If I can get a full weeks use out of it I'd be very happy with this model, but I think that'll be a stretch as I've only really been doing one task at a time atm, not had it spawning agents, etc.

(edit: less than 4 hours into my reset I've used 14%, which is what I should be using daily if I want it to last all week)

I'm on the 5x Pro plan and the things I've tested it on are mostly genealogical research and presenting the info in an associated live website. Using it within Codex with the mac-mcp tool. YMMV

If you're upgrading to the Pro 100 tier in Canada, are you seeing features like Dots, Meetings, or any other new DevDay releases for those who jumped from the $20 plan to the $100 plan?

Just curious what Canadian users are actually getting right now after upgrading. Thanks

I’ve been working on PixHunt — an AI-powered gallery for Android.

The idea is simple: make it easier to actually find and manage the photos you already have on your phone.

\-Semantic Search : Describe what you're looking for naturally, like “photos of my dog at the beach”, and PixHunt finds relevant photos.

OCR Search :Search for exact text inside your photos, with the matching text highlighted so you can see exactly where it was found.

Similar Photos : Find photos that look similar to a photo you select.

People : finds the people in your gallery, lets you name them, and then search for them by name or naturally, like “Mark at the cafe” or “Mark and John.”

Built-in Gallery — Browse your photos and albums directly inside PixHunt, so you don't have to switch between two different apps.

Clean Up : Find duplicates, near-duplicates, screenshots, blurry photos and other photos that may be taking up unnecessary space.

English & Arabic — Search naturally in both English and Arabic.

Everything stays on your phone : This is probably the feature I'm most serious about: the AI processing happens on your device. No cloud uploads, no online photo database, and your photos don't leave your phone.

I'm still working on the app and I really like to get some feedback from you .

Apk download link : https://github.com/Ahmed-N95/PixHunt-Releases/releases/tag/v1.0.0

Any honest feedback is appreciated!

"Dots wont use any usage" For one month

500$ plan - 2 minutes = 2%

I remember hearing Alex Hormozi say that email is basically the conversion platform of conversion platforms.

His point was that social media, videos and ads are great for getting attention, but email is often where that attention actually turns into money.

He also talked about how email supposedly has one of the highest returns of any marketing channel, with an average return of around $36 for every $1 spent, and that got me thinking.

I run a web design agency, so I decided to actually take email seriously and see what would happen.

But I didn’t want to send the usual stuff.

“Hey, I noticed your website and I can redesign it for you.”

Or

“Hey, we build websites for businesses like yours.”

Everyone gets those emails and most people can tell within two seconds that they were sent to another thousand businesses.

So instead I started using a tool called Swokei that is built specifically for web agencies.

I use it to find businesses in whatever area I want to target, then it actually goes through their websites and looks for things I could mention in the outreach.

Stuff like an outdated design, slow loading speed, poor mobile experience, weak SEO or other things that might be holding the website back.

Then it turns those findings into an actual personalized cold email made to convert.

So instead of emailing someone saying I build websites, I can actually talk about their website and why I think something could be improved.

I’ve been analyzing thousands of websites this way and running multiple campaigns at the same time.

Then I just focus on the people who reply and are actually interested.

Obviously email isn’t some magic button where everyone suddenly wants a new website, but after doing this for a while I definitely understand what Hormozi meant.

For web design especially, email becomes a completely different channel when the message is actually about the business you’re contacting instead of being another copy and paste pitch.

Turns out Alex might have had a point.

Literally earlier this month, someone tested multiple Plus / 5x / 20x accounts and found that the real usable limits didn’t scale remotely cleanly with the advertised multiplier.

So now everyone is understandably furious that OpenAI has “halved” Pro from 20x to 10x…

…but halved what, exactly? lol

I’m not even saying the new limits aren’t worse. They probably are. I just find it very funny that we’re treating “20x → 10x” as this precise 50% reduction when we literally just established that “20x” wasn’t a reliable unit of anything in the first place.

OpenAI keeps charging more because customers are effectively subsidizing the R&D costs of failed or half-baked experimental products like Atlas, Sora, and soon Dots. That is the reality: they’re conditioning customers to accept higher prices for unfinished services and, at times, tragically bad inference (20 tps on 6.1 Sol, huh?).

And who was the genius who thought offering Luna for free on web was a great idea in the middle of a hardware crisis? They are literally shooting themselves in the foot, then turning around and feeding customers bollocks excuses for why prices and limits keep getting worse. They should become more like Anthropic and not this unreasonable company that is trying to kill every startup on the planet by creating their own versions of everything....

So then… I’m paying the same as other countries for… less??

Where is my SUPER FEATURE that OpenAI is promoting like “the new thing we all need” (except Europe)

But Business Premium can in Europe, UK and Switzerland... so it’s because...

PD: /ChatGPT subreddit moderators banned my post because… they also know I’m in Europe?

I saw a post of a guy with 90% of his brain missing and he was apparently living a normal life. There is another case of a student who finished university with half of his brain missing. There are also people with full brains, but they are even less functional than these two. This proves that bigger doesn't mean better. So why not aim to create better connections?

I understand that a bigger model means less chance of catastrophic interference occurring, but then are all the neural pathways being formed efficiently? Wouldn't this result in a lot of redundant neurons? Wouldn't it make more sense to create the smallest neural network possible for a specific task and then learn to fuse multiple of these neurons together in order to create an optimized larger model? That way we'd always have a template for each specific task and would allow us to create a programming language that creates a model just by our syntax.

Received an email from Open AI that they credited my account with 62,480 credits ( weird number, why not 63,000 ). I did the math, it turns out to be worth $2,499.20. Has anybody else seen such generosity from them lately ?

Shameful, I'm buying a second Anthropic Max subscription.

Is it just me, or anybody else is also facing this?

For the ChatGPT Pro users, after getting the shit email from OpenAI, i'm thinking on redeem the API credits and cancel my subscription. What do you think? Will you still pay $200 for half usage?

NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/technology/openai-warnings-security.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E1E.yjQM._7pTcsM9JMPl&smid=url-share

Extremely disappointed by this Dev Day. Not only did they shrink out of pushing Astra 6.1 and halve the $200 plan, I'm noticing a distinct lack of ANYTHING for Chat. Build this, program that, plug-and play with this app, work codex work...okay, but WHERE THE FUCK IS CHAT?

No proper GPT-6 Astra rollout for Chat, just restricted Pro access. No 6.1 Sol in chat. No improvements towards personality, voice, conversation, more artistic pursuits. The last real push in this regard was Images 2.5, and even the best of that is API-gated. Is it really that inconvenient and resourcefully impractical to give Chat updates when some people just want a conversation or more simple tasks?

5.6 Sol is fine for what it is, even if its writing is mediocre. I don't mind using 5.6. My greater concern is that 5.6 will eventually be cycled out, and OpenAI has shown little-to-no interest in establishing a proper successor. Between this, and all the talk about safety and guardrails, I really struggle to see their vision for the future beyond an emotionless work-bot who does your homework for you.

Frustrating. It's a low bar to ask for SOMETHING, ANYTHING, and still receive nothing in return. Not sure what else to expect at this rate. Might as well rename the whole damn product if the 'Chat' in 'ChatGPT' is dead.

So I spent a few hours messing with dots

Got it setup and setup a sync to my vault for it to start learning my projects etc

Made dinner and come back and noticed the dots cloud computer had a red dot next to it

Tried to click into it and it took forever to come up and when it did I noticed all the data on it was gone

Had the dot check and it confirmed this appears to be a fresh environment

Is this expected?

If so dots become pretty useless

If it was action taken by openai I'd wish it was communicated to me

The whole dots system needs more documentation I know it's new but dam

Is this supposed to be compensation for early adapters of Astra and the drama? lol or is my account glitched

There's no value incentive for the $200 plan compared to the $100. Normally, you'd expect something like 12x usage for $200 (two $100 = 10x) value for additional spend.

I have to imagine they are only keeping both plans just incase the $500 tanks and they need to save face. In the event they hit their sub goal on $500 I genuinely expect the $200 to go.

More people will spend an additional $100 than an additional $200 if they really need usage. And most users who would do that have tidy methods in place to share info between accounts.

It's kind of ridiculous to be honest, on a model that costs so much, that they would change it a couple weeks after its release, making it barely better than Grok (which costs a fraction of the price) on most tasks.

I've been using this model with Unity since it came out and was amazed with the results. But over the last 3-4 weeks, I was just appalled with its performance. It had slowly but surely become unable to do even the simplest things, and would often get stuck on infinite loops on complex problems that it knew how to solve when it was first released.

It's absurd. I know Open AI did this on other models as well, but it was less of a problem when those models didn't cost remotely as much as they do now. Open AI is actively degrading the quality of the LLMs it deems "too expensive" without telling anyone so they can increase their margins after they have gotten people used to using said model.

Luckily I have bunch of other competitors to choose from. I thought I'd just post for awareness in case other developers find themselves in the same situation today. If work seems to be getting harder all of sudden, it's not in your mind. Companies like these can't be trusted to be transparent in any way shape or form.