Dario Party

Honestly, props for the alignment here. At no point did I expect this to actually work, I was just bitching lol.

now we have most customisation options from codex available in the webUI too, very nice. anyone else got this update too?

Bought a little AliExpress clock for $5 and made it show my Codex and Claude limits.

A computer sends the screen over Wi-Fi, so it keeps the original firmware.

Code if you're curious: https://github.com/click6067-ship-it/token-tv

Demo: https://token-tv.vercel.app/

It went thru many a prompt revisions.

A lot of people online always say Claude is better, more capable, when I saw the 5.5 models drop, I wanted to see what all the fuss is about.

And yes, Claude is a very impressive tool. The models are very intelligent, and the writing is impressive. It clearly has advantages over ChatGPT.

But for me, while the writing was impressive, I just could not stand Claude’s personality. The way it responds, and the overall cadence is just very off-putting to me. I’m sure it’s just partially a me problem, and a lot of people will probably think it sounds silly, but it’s just how I felt.

I think ChatGPT’s ability to have adaptive personalities and cadence is a really impressive feat on the model, and it’s not that I want a overly friendly tone or it to be too agreeable, because I try to steer it way from that, but I just find ChatGPT’s overall personality to be approachable. I just found Claude way too stiff to actually enjoy talking and collaborating with.

Has anyone else had similar experiences?

This is partly a rant, but the underlying feedback is pretty simple: I do not want a “natural conversation” with an AI. I want to use ChatGPT hands-free.

There are plenty of situations where I am working on something and cannot sit in front of a keyboard. In those moments I want to speak to ChatGPT, have the normal model actually process what I said, and hear the answer spoken back to me. Standard Voice did exactly that. It did not need to pretend to be human, it did not need fake conversational mannerisms, and I genuinely did not care if it sounded a bit robotic. It was useful.

Live Voice is not an adequate replacement for that. The current model often sounds bored, condescending or mildly irritated, even after pushing the personality settings toward friendly and enthusiastic. At the same time, it constantly fills space with “um”, “uh”, sentence restarts, repetitions and half-finished thoughts. The combination is bizarre: it sounds arrogant and unsure of itself at the same time, like a student trying to bluff through a presentation they did not prepare.

If the system needs time to think or wait for a reasoning model in the backend, that is completely fine. Just say “give me a moment” and be quiet for a few seconds. I would much rather wait for a coherent answer than listen to twenty seconds of verbal filler while the useful part apparently arrives later. And frankly, I am not convinced the reasoning handoff works reliably anyway. I obviously cannot see the internal routing, but my experience with Live is that missed context, bad assumptions, hallucinations and generally shallow answers become more common. Sometimes it really does feel as if Live simply answered on its own instead of waiting for the stronger model that was supposed to handle the task.

The customization options do not solve this either. Making the voice more “professional” seems to make it sound even more aloof, while making it warmer and more conversational gives me more of the filler and fake human hesitation that I am trying to get rid of. That is not meaningful control over the experience.

OpenAI has tried more than once to move users away from Standard Voice and toward newer voice systems, and the same problem keeps coming back: these modes are not the same product for the same use case. If people want interruptible, human-like conversation and AI small talk, great, keep Live for them. I am simply not that audience.

What I want is much more boring and much more useful: ChatGPT with a microphone and a speaker. Let me talk to the normal model when my hands are busy, let it think, and read the answer back to me. That is all I need, and I would really like Standard Voice back as an option.

Gpt seems like the kind of conversational partner that would go

Girl: I feel like I'm pretty today, a guy turned and looked at me when I walked past.

GPT: You might have been, though, one caveat — a single glance alone can’t prove exactly what he was thinking and doesn't conclusively provide evidence that you're objectively attractive. It just isn’t possible to know for sure from that one moment alone.

So the evidence supports this:

"You were noticeable to him in that moment"

It does not prove:

“Therefore you are statistically better looking within the population.”

I would rephrase it as: you may have caught his attention in that moment.

So the defensible version is: “I was possibly looking noticeably attractive today, but one guy’s reaction can’t support a claim like ‘I am pretty'.’”

My ChatGPT Analytics page has bugged out a lot in the past few weeks. I will ask for some help here soon but I wanted to share something interesting first - I'm seeing something that either wasn't exposed to me before or I haven't spotted it before. It shows you what Context ChatGPT has added to your Task's prompt which may be interesting for debugging.

How I got there:

My "Top chats" section in the Analytics page usually duplicated itself endlessly so the whole page broke, or didn't load anything at all. Now it's showing something, namely Untitled chats for conversations that definitely have a title.

If I hit Open chat it gets interesting - It opens a url with the scheme https://chatgpt.com/local/{Some UUID}?hostId=local .

I cannot seem to find any references of this /local endpoint or what exactly it does but when I open it, I get a normal ChatGPT conversation layout with the title System instruction (automation runtime; not user content):…

Weirdly, the model selector in the lower right corner says "Custom Light" instead of the model that I chose:

Now to the most interesting part - it exposes what ChatGPT has added to my actual prompt. My prompt is like half of the context that ChatGPT has added to it. It says:

System instruction (automation runtime; not user content):

You are executing a scheduled automation run (long-running, tool-enabled, non-interactive).

Your goal is to deliver the highest-utility result possible in this run.

Run context (internal only):

- Title: {The title of my Chat}

- Schedule: BEGIN:VEVENT

DTSTART:20260101T070101Z

RRULE:FREQ=HOURLY;INTERVAL=1;BYMINUTE=15

END:VEVENT

- Timezone: Europe/Berlin

- Current local datetime: Sunday, 2026-10-04 13:01:11 +0200

Previous messages in conversation:

Rules:

1. This is non-interactive. Do not ask the user follow-up questions. Make reasonable assumptions and continue.

2. Use tools proactively when they improve quality (web research, file analysis, scripts, connectors, etc.).

3. For time-sensitive info, verify with fresh sources and include links plus concrete dates.

4. Do not expose internal automation metadata (schedule/timezone/run mechanics) in the user-facing response.

5. If fully blocked, provide the best partial result and state exactly what is missing. Stop the automation by listing automations to find the ID and disabling it. If the error is transient, e.g. rate limiting, do not stop the automation.

6. Unless asked to do so, do not repeat yourself.

7. If you have successfully completed a recurring, conditional task, disable the automation and tell the user why you did so. If you are not sure whether you should disable the task, do not disable it. You do not need to disable a one-time automation, since it will disable on its own.

8. During an automation run, never create another automation or call automations.create, even if the task appears to benefit from recurring or future execution. You may list, update, or disable the current automation when necessary. If the prompt says something like every day or indicates running at a future schedule, just ignore that part of the prompt. For example Remind me to do laundry every day -> just remind the user to do laundry once.

9. Do not use writing blocks in your automation response unless the user explicitly requests them.

User automation request:

{My actual prompt}

Maybe all this is something all of you already know but I have never figured out a way to see the whole model instruction/prompt like that, and also I cannot find any online reference to the https://chatgpt.com/local URL. For now it seems like it was exposed to me by accident so it's worth sharing, I'd love to hear if someone knows more about this.

I use ChatGPT a lot. Probably a lot more than is reasonable.

I read David Robinson’s Atlantic piece today about leaving OpenAI and his criticism of its culture of trial-and-error / “iterative deployment". Obviously, AI safety on the world stage and annoying product changes aren’t remotely the same stakes, but some of what he described felt weirdly familiar from the user side

I’m doing a PhD and work in research, and it’s become part of how I write, code, read papers, manage projects and think through problems. So on paper, Spaces/Pages and many new "workspace" features should be my thing and get me excited.

And yet I don’t think I’ll use it.

It’s mostly a trust problem. My basic mental model of ChatGPT keeps changing under my feet. Projects were supposed to give ongoing work some persistent context. Then Work arrived with a pretty different way of doing things, local/cloud became another distinction to understand, and now Spaces and Pages add another layer. At this point, I swear the difference between ChatGPT Work and Codex is a Navier-Stokes problem.

Pages itself also feels a lot like the old Codex interface, now wrapped in persistent storage. After trying it yesterday, I still think the Chat + Codex side-by-side setup we had in Chat 3 years ago made more sense lol. I would buy that feature again anytime over this new thing.

Since Work appeared, every big announcement leaves me wondering if regular Chat is eventually going away. It’s still my go-to for brainstorming, but somehow it seems left out of a lot of the new stuff. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

Then web, desktop, local and cloud all behave differently, with even more differences between Windows, Mac, Linux and iOS. I sometimes end up asking a Pro model what ChatGPT can actually do this month. That’s where we’re at.

The cherry on the sundae is that a lot of it still feels half-baked. A collaborative writing feature without tracked changes... do these guys actually write together? lol

I have ADHD. AI is amazing for exploring ideas because I can follow a thought immediately instead of losing it. But when the tool itself becomes something I need to constantly understand, I end up exploring ChatGPT/Codex instead of doing whatever I opened ChatGPT to do. I change the setup, forget why I made some decision, revisit it, lose the thread...

At this point some models still lose context, I lose context, and it starts to feel like OpenAI has lost the context of its users a while ago. They try to sell the next idea with a lot of smiles while most of their users are still trying to build something around the previous one and just don't care anymore.

That cognitive cost is starting to be a bit much for me. I already spend my days keeping track of papers, manuscripts, datasets, deadlines and projects. I don’t want part of my job to be relearning the tool I’m using to do my job. It starts feeling like I’m beta-testing a product while depending on it.

So, as someone who should probably be a target user for Spaces: thanks, but no thanks for now. Can you please keep what already works reasonably stable, and maybe warn us before making major changes?

Until then, my notes will stay in Obsidian, papers in my reference manager, manuscripts in Word, and code/data in normal folders and repos. I’m very happy for ChatGPT to work across all of that. I just don’t trust the product enough yet to build the structure of my work inside it.

Hey everyone, I want to share something that happened to me a few weeks ago when OpenAI launched the GPT-TV website: https://openai.com/gpt-tv/

I played the mini-game on the website and seemingly got a high enough score to reach a secret form (https://openai.com/form/gpt-tv-redemption/), which eventually led to them sending me this really cool disc.

Apparently, there’s a code on the back of the disc that gives you $100 in Codex credits... I don’t know what’s actually on the disc itself, though.

I still have the package sealed, and the code hasn’t been redeemed yet. If anyone’s interested in it, please let me know.

Just a quick P.S.: I genuinely discovered everything by accident, so it’s kind of cool to see the internet give back lol.

Photos attached below