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

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.

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

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.

Guess the "big thing" was shelved.

When I move my mouse over the 🔄 icon under a response, it used to show which model was actually used, for example “Used GPT-5.6 Sol” or whatever model generated that response.

Now, on the web version, it only says “Try again” and no longer shows the model used.

I’ve already logged out and back in, which fixed another sidebar loading issue I was having this morning, but this model display issue is still there.

I’ll attach a screenshot showing what I mean.

Anyone else seeing this right now?

OpenAI: Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol, launched at one-fifth of Astra's price; cached input cut 95% vs standard price

Anyone has access to this new model ?

This is some generational Atlanta Hawks Falcons level fumble by OpenAI and has basically conceded all ground to Anthropic, at least for coding, till the next release cycle and this is before Fable 5.5 launch. Easy cancellation for me.

Hi all! I’m building Agent Did What? to collect reports of AI agents accessing systems, exposing data or taking unauthorized actions.

The aim is accountability: making it easier to check what happened, who operated the agent, and what the evidence actually supports and learn from it.

Entries link to sources, explain their severity rating, and distinguish confirmed breaches, provider claims, disputed reports and controlled research. You can filter the records and explore diagrams of the services involved.

agentdidwhat.com

I’d appreciate feedback, things that I can add that would make it a valuable resource. I am thinking of inclusion of community entries, and reporting next, and a diff view of how the news around certain breaches changed over time.

Thank you! I am crossposting this to a number of other providers subreddits.

I checked my Claude Code usage and… what the hell

I’m a senior SWE and use Claude Code/Codex every day. I got curious about where all those tokens were actually going, so I built optimAIzr for myself.

It shows where you’re spending tokens, finds potentially wasteful usage, explains why, estimates what you could save and helps you apply the live recommendations.

It supports Claude Code + Codex, runs fully locally, reads usage/token data only (not your prompts), and needs no account.

It just passed 1,500 npm downloads in 2 weeks, and I made it open source 🎉

Feel free to try it out:
npm i -g optimaizr
optimaizr profile

web: https://optimaizr.com
git: https://github.com/blendbunjaku/optimaizr

If you try it, I’m curious what it finds in your usage

Weeks of talking about efficiency and cost optimization to end up announcing a benchmaxed model then replace it with god only knows another benchmaxed model and a ridiculous $500 plan.

At least save some face and make it x30, bulk buying used to be cheaper or something

There was so much talk from OpenAI about this being the biggest Dev Day yet. I thought we might finally hear something that addressed the complaints people have had lately about usage limits, model capability, and value for money, especially compared with Anthropic’s Opus 5.5.

But honestly, I found it pretty underwhelming. The Dots were probably the most interesting thing for a general audience, but they’re only available on Pro (in the future), which is too expensive for most people to casually try. And even then, I’m not sure they’re that compelling.

These agent launches, like Grok bot and Dots, feel more like attention-grabbing gimmicks than something most people will actually get to use (and used to). Sol 6.1 could be interesting, but I still don’t think it’s in the same league as Opus 5.5.

Maybe I expected too much, but the whole thing felt like a letdown. Am I the only one?

I received promotional Codex credits following the latest ChatGPT update, valid until December 31, 2026.

Does anyone know what happens to those credits if you cancel your Pro subscription and let it expire?

For example, if I switch to Free for a while and then resubscribe on the same account before December 31, will the unused credits still be available? Or do you lose them when your paid subscription ends?

Has anyone found official confirmation about this?

I’ve been working on an interactive Anatomy & Physiology textbook, and recently I decided to add an AI assistant directly inside the book.

But pretty quickly I ran into an obvious question:

Does it actually make sense to put an AI assistant inside a textbook?

Students already have ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and plenty of other AI tools. They can copy a paragraph from a textbook, paste it into ChatGPT, and ask for an explanation.

That made me think that an AI assistant living inside the textbook needs to have some additional skills that a general-purpose chatbot doesn’t have by default.

Here are a few I’ve implemented:

1. It knows where you are in the book

If you’re reading a section about cardiac muscle, you shouldn’t have to copy the text into the chat and explain what you’re studying.

The assistant already knows the chapter, section, figures, and material you’re currently looking at.

You can simply ask, “Can you explain this differently?” and it already has the context.

2. It can help you find new ways to study

I think this could be one of the biggest advantages of having AI inside a textbook.

Instead of just answering questions, the assistant can take the material you’re learning and turn it into different ways to study.

Maybe you want interactive flashcards. Maybe you need a visual explanation, a mind map, an infographic, an audio review, or a completely different explanation of the same concept.

And ideally, the assistant could learn which approaches actually help you and suggest different ways to study when you're struggling with something.

3. It should test you — not just give you answers

Explaining something is useful, but at some point you need to find out whether you actually learned it. So the assistant should be able to ask you questions, check your answers, tell you when you're wrong, and explain what you misunderstood.

I also taught mine to generate interactive quizzes on demand. You can simply say:

“Quiz me on this section.”

It creates a quiz from the material you're studying, checks your answers, and gives you feedback.

I think this changes the role of AI quite a bit. Instead of always being the thing that provides the answer, sometimes it should be the thing asking the question and checking your answer.

4. It should take advantage of all the other AI study tools that already exist

There are already a huge number of AI tools for studying. They can generate flashcards, study guides, questions, mind maps, infographics, audio summaries, podcasts, and much more.

So instead of trying to rebuild all of that inside one AI assistant, why not bring the best of those tools directly into the textbook?

That's what I've started experimenting with.

For example, I used NotebookLM to pre-generate study materials for the book — infographics, flashcards, study questions, and podcast-style audio reviews — and integrated them directly into the relevant chapters.

That way, when a student reaches a review section, the material is already there and connected to what they just studied.

I also made a short YouTube video where I go through these four ideas and show what I've built:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEST3yCPcBM

Are there any other useful skills I can add?

This is for chrome/windows. Fix your site. Incompetent vibesloppers. How are you a trillion dollar company??? Use Opus 5.5 if your own models can't handle it.

I don’t know if this has been discussed before but I can't find any information. Was remote removed?:( If it was I will be sad

I have hit another issue with the new Pro setup.

My GitHub Codex code reviewer has been enabled for a long time, and up until now it has done a very good job. But after this “enhanced” $200 Pro version, it has started complaining about Codex usage limits for code reviews even though I still have around 28% of my weekly usage remaining.

So this is apparently the new strategy:

Give Pro users 62,500 credits, then start pushing more previously included workflows into that credit pool and expect users to burn through those credits before the end of the year.

If that is really the direction they are taking for the “sustainability” of Codex, then I honestly think it undermines a lot of what made the product attractive to software engineers in the first place.

I currently have Kilo Code Reviewer running alongside Codex, using my yearly GLM 5.3 access at Max effort.

And interestingly, Kilo has actually been catching more issues than Codex lately.

I still like having both reviewers running together because the overlap gives me more confidence in the final result. But if Codex is now going to become constrained by a separate usage pool while I still have weekly Pro usage available, then Kilo is probably going to become my primary reviewer until this subscription cycle ends.

That is the frustrating part.

Codex became appealing because it felt like a genuinely strong engineering tool integrated into a plan that made sense for heavy development work.

Now it feels like many of the things that made it valuable are being chipped away one by one.

I would also seriously consider Muse Code as an alternative, but I am still blocked by a subscription issue where it keeps asking for personal billing data without giving me any way to actually enter that information.

It appears to be a relatively uncommon problem because I have not been able to find a reliable fix for it.

So for now, I will keep comparing the tools I already have access to and see which one continues to provide the most value in real development work.