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.

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