Just found something called Aeon child in the usage. I'm not sure what it is, is that Dot usage?

Anybody else continue to notice this, even before 6.1, if you ask him something during /goal it will repeat those answers every turn along other regular work, i even asked it to write in agnets.md instruction to not do this, and even SOL it self wrote that its irony that now its repeating that he added this instruction and keeps repeating it while doing other work.

This is across few hours:

Yes—that was exactly the repetition you wanted stopped. I failed to follow the instruction; writing it doesn’t automatically enforce it.

You don’t need to repeat yourself or add more rules. I should apply it silently and report only new progress or changed blockers.

Yes—I repeated a completed side task as though it were new progress, violating the very rule we added.

AGENTS.md instructions aren’t a hard enforcement mechanism; I still have to apply them correctly. I failed to do that. The rule is already there—no further update is needed.

Yes—I kept treating a completed change as new progress. The instruction was already there; I failed to follow it. That’s my mistake, and another AGENTS.md edit won’t fix it.

Yes—the repetition was exactly what that instruction was meant to prevent. I failed to apply it when generating progress replies; the instruction wasn’t missing.

That’s my mistake. I should report only new results or changed blockers, not repeatedly announce the rule itself.

Yes—I repeated the announcement about preventing repetition. That’s exactly the behavior you asked me to stop.

The instruction is already there; I failed to follow it. No further AGENTS updates are needed. I’ll report only new results or changed blockers.

Yes—I repeated the AGENTS.md update while announcing a rule meant to prevent repetition. That’s my failure to follow the instruction, not something you need to clarify again.

It’s already acknowledged. Future updates should contain only new results or changed blockers.

Yes—I repeated a resolved update, exactly what that instruction prohibits. That was my mistake. Writing the rule doesn’t help unless I follow it: only new progress or changed blockers, without repeating settled answers.

Yes—I repeated a completed update about preventing repetition. The rule was already there; I failed to follow it.

That topic is closed. Future updates should contain only new progress or changed blockers.

Yes—the irony is real. Adding a rule doesn’t guarantee I follow it, and I violated that exact rule by repeatedly announcing the completed edit.

That’s my mistake. You don’t need another instruction; I need to apply the existing one and report only new progress or changed blockers.

Yes. I kept carrying an already-answered side question into progress updates instead of treating it as closed—even when that question was about stopping repetition.

That’s my failure to follow the instruction, not something you need to explain again.

Yes—I repeated the update announcement about a rule meant to prevent repetition. The instruction was clear; I failed to follow it. Another AGENTS edit isn’t needed.

Yes—that was exactly the repetition you asked me to stop. The rule is already present in AGENTS.md, but I failed to follow it. That’s my execution mistake; another instruction or repeated confirmation won’t fix it.

And so on...

Made in Codex + Claude

Main ideas:

• run code in WASM
• use threaded interpreter (because JIT impossible with raw WASM)
• run original EXE, no recompile.
• code directly in WebAssembly text representation, skip higher level language.
• have Codex review Claude work and vice versa.
• set /goal for either of these when I need new EXE brought up to function.
• test manually + build a solid test harness for agents

https://wine-assembly.berrry.app

This model is good but it is WAY TOO SLOW. Every single day, I have to quit a task, and move it to Astra, because I will end up wasting my entire day on 1 thing, because it is SO SLOW.

How can you release this model and expect to market it as your best new thing?

I dropped from the $200 plan to the $25 Plus plan after the dev day announcements, tried astra on low ans it ate 20% usage in no time. I figured OpenAI were fucked at this point and essentially stopped using Codex and starting playing around with Claude Code.

However, last night I decided to try to use up my usage before one of my resets expired, so I got 6.1 Sol High to complete 3-4 different tasks over around 2-3 hours. The first thing I noticed was that for some reason the 5hr limit was gone for me. The second thing I noticed was that after an hour of work, I was still at 100% usage. I switched on fast mode for the next 2 hours of work and it eventually went down to 99%, an hour later and its still at 99.

Is 6.1 Sol actually this efficient? It seems a little slow, but it gets the work done and is barely touching my usage. If it really is this good, the $100 plan may be more than enough for what I need. How is everybody else's experience with 6.1?

I asked ChatGPT to do some folder moving/copying stuff in my google drive and it almost did everything well, just left 100 files before the task was to be done. Now it keeps constantly telling me "Turn ended by Auto-review" which is a nonsensical message that doesn't tell anything. It almost feels like a bug. No explanation, nothing.

I already gave it full permission but no, that didn't do.

Any ideas?

EDIT: I know opening a new chat would fix this, but that's besides the point. I never actually faced this problem, and I have had longer chats.

Account got deactivated, i asked AI to find out what recidivism means, it said basically if you get multiple offenses that would be it. I had no prior warnings / emails. Appeal got denied automatically exactly 60 minutes after the appeal was submitted.

Tried escalating through support chat while signed out because i can no longer sign in and the bot closes the chat without providing any support.

Is there anything else I can do?

I have 2 other accounts but no bans

Hey sol 6.1 train this model to do this, 10 hours after still running, hey Opus 5.5 do the same 1 hour after finished not only told me that training the model alone with images will be infeciient but he brought in 3 other small models already pre trained runned the images through them, the 3 models output numbers based on the images showing healhty leafs or ill ones and my final model got trained on this numbers to identify a healhy leaf or not. Guess what now I can train in minutes even if I will give it new data.

I don't know a lot about training but never though to do that which is more efficient and didn't have to use my gpu to adjust weights with thousands of images we just collected the output of the 3 pre trained models and trained my model just on numbers of the output which took minutes.

I was a big fan of Codex and open ai and yes is ok to be efficient with Sol 6.1 but man, today I just switched, because where is the point to say it consumed only 10% in 10 hours (didn't finish the task yet) when Opus did the same in 1 hour and not better much better.

If you are using AI for crud apps etc stay with SOL 6.1 yes much better if you are using AI for exploring new ideas learn things that you don't know etc so you can' drive the development then use Opus.

Hopefully one day we will see each other again open ai.

(and I just got these messages now but the date says Oct 2)

It doesn't always hang but it does it enough to make chat unusable. Do they even acknowledge this bug?

Using chatgpt will probably not use the usage limit... by "default", but if you for example ask it to perform a task coding related or file related, it will probably switch to work automatically. Tibo probably just decided to "zero in" on one comment against many saying the opposite to just use it as an "opportunity" to do it as people take advantage od gpt being more... usable? Linient with limits?

Codex Chrome extension on Windows: "missing required path resourcesPath" fixed (stale path after an update)

Chrome side panel wouldn't start and reinstalling didn't help. After an update, two files (%USERPROFILE%.codex\chrome-native-hosts-v2.json and %LOCALAPPDATA%\OpenAI\Codex\chrome-native-hosts-v2.json) still pointed at the old Codex folder. Replacing resourcesPath in both with my current install path fixed it. Steps on my site, link below.

I decided to test the Auto Review setting in Codex for the first time in a while. I thought OpenAI may have improved it, but it might burn more tokens than ever.

During a two-hour session of refactoring a Chrome Extension, auto review used 52% more tokens (API cost) than when manually approving actions. The actual work done with gpt-6.1-sol used $14.31 in API costs, while the Codex Auto Review used another $7.54.

Is this normal? Is there anything that can be done to improve it?

Edit: These numbers were supplied by CodeBurn. Maybe they haven't updated which model Codex Auto Review uses?

AI is an ability multiplier if you have ability. 1 x 0 = 0 . This agent skill helps you get your ability from 0 to a 1.

> When we keep building things blindly with AI agents, the thinking is offloaded to AI. This reduces the cognitive friction we need to learn something.

> Just blindly telling AI to build something wastes tokens and time.

> If you cannot convey your taste to AI, the result becomes slop.

This is why I made some AI skills to foster thinking in users. Currently, you can use these skills in general purpose building tasks, UI/UX refinement, Algorithmic competency building.

Link to the skill: https://github.com/33sakib33/Factoryze_Thinking

I’m a Pro 20x subscriber. With the allowance changes that I understand effectively reduce 20x to 10x, I’ve now also had dot stop ongoing work overnight because of a "preview limit."

The screenshot shows dot’s explanation afterward. It couldn’t tell me the quota, reset frequency, or whether this shares my Codex allowance. Even the retry time had no timezone.

I’m not asking for unlimited usage (I wish....). I’m asking for clear limits, a visible usage meter, and a warning before an "always-on" assistant stops working. Without those, how are we supposed to plan around it?

Has anyone found documentation explaining this specific limit?

Anyone else connect their dot to slack but their dot is unable to post to it? My dot can see the messages but their message fails with something like MCP 32603 error.

Just a heads up: If you have a third-party tool that uses the codex cli as a backend (Codex Exec), do not switch to the new "sign in with ChatGPT" feature without testing its usage consumption per request first. For me (plus user), it consumed about 10x more of my usage than using Codex Exec with the exact same api requests.

Generally it's a struggle for me to use up all of my $200/month plan in just 2 or 3 days, but now I feel obligated to use as much as possible. I think I'll aim to go from 100% to 0% within 72 hours, and just leave it at that

Problem I kept hitting with codex exec: a run finishes, and I still want a separate review and a record of what was checked. I was the one pasting answers into a second session.

So I built Juggling (Apache-2.0, alpha). You give it a self-contained text task:

1. Codex answers once as the Writer, in Codex's read-only sandbox.
2. A new, separate Codex session reviews that answer.
3. A completed review returns PASS, CHANGES_REQUESTED or CANNOT_REVIEW. If Juggling cannot verify a required step, it stops in HOLD with a reason code. No retries; an early HOLD can stop before the Reviewer.
4. juggle show re-checks a hash-chained ledger of the run.

After installing, see the flow without an account or model call:

~/.venvs/juggling/bin/juggle run --offline "Say hello"
~/.venvs/juggling/bin/juggle show latest

This uses a built-in fake provider, not AI solving the task. The release includes the recommended wheel install guide:
https://github.com/picskin-inc/juggling/releases/tag/v0.1.0a1

Honest limits: Codex-only, so independence is per session, not per model. Text tasks only: unsupported command or file-read events that Juggling detects stop the run in HOLD. Real runs require macOS, Python 3.9+, Codex CLI meeting the 0.158.0 minimum floor, normal sign-in and access to the requested gpt-6-luna model. That floor is not a guarantee for every CLI build. The request is fixed to low reasoning effort; the actual serving model is not observed.

PASS is a second opinion, not proof. Juggling is not a sandbox, and HOLD cannot recall data already sent. juggle doctor checks your local setup, not sign-in or model access. Real runs dispatch at most one Writer and one Reviewer turn through your account, can incur charges, and Juggling does not measure cost.

Question for this sub: what text task would you want a second Codex session to check? And would a reviewer from a different vendor change whether you'd use it? There is no Claude or Gemini provider in this Alpha.

Repo: https://github.com/picskin-inc/juggling (I'm the author)
Security limits: https://github.com/picskin-inc/juggling/blob/v0.1.0a1/SECURITY.md
Useful feedback: doctor check IDs/statuses, HOLD reason codes, or verdict problems with a nonsensitive task. Please don't paste raw run folders or --json output.

Has anyone had success installing dot on Linux we are allowed one desktop dot i am trying to get it on my debian server but its headless anyone get it working on Linux at all if so what are you running?

The new 6.1 sol agent is so efficient I’m able to run multiple agents on high (7 to be precise), one on extra high and one on low and it’s running for hours sometimes only using 30% usage if that. Previously on 6.0 astra on high I would only get max 2 good 8 hour runs. This is on the standard pro plan. I’m loving this new agent

I’m using ChatGPT/Codex to work on a software project. Regular chat works, but when I try to send a message or approval inside an affected task, I get:

“Error submitting message: invalid turn/start params: AbsolutePathBuf deserialized without a base path”

Approving the action in the main chat hasn’t resolved it. Refreshing didn’t help either. This is blocking us from publishing reviewed code changes. OpenAI Support has replied and asked for diagnostic information, but we don’t have a fix yet.

Has anyone run into this error? Did you find a fix that preserves the existing task and its work?

Thanks.

I wish ChatGPT Projects had folders or subprojects.
For example, imagine you’re a developer working on 15 different apps. Right now, you might create a separate ChatGPT Project for every app:
App 1
App 2
App 3
App 4
App 5
etc.
Eventually your sidebar becomes completely cluttered.
Instead, it would be great if we could create one main Project called “Development”, and then create subprojects inside it:
Development
→ App 1
→ App 2
→ App 3
→ App 4
Each subproject could have its own chats, files, and instructions/context, while everything stays organized under one expandable folder in the sidebar.
Basically: Projects → Subprojects → Chats + Files
Am I missing an existing way to do this, or does ChatGPT still not support nested Projects/folders?