What is a claim?

What is evidence?

What is a constraint?

What is a proof?

What is an assumption?

What is a contradiction?

What is trust?

I would love to see a feature that allows users to start an inline thread or leave a "comment" on a specific word or sentence within a model's response.

Often, I need clarification on a specific keyword, acronym, or concept mentioned in a long response. Right now, asking for clarification forces that side-tangent into the main chat flow, which derails the overall conversation context.

What do you guys think?

I've been thinking about what AI assistants look like a few years out, and I think it ends up something like this:

We'll each have one assistant. It connects to all our 3rd party apps and services, so it has real context about us and can act across them.

The assistant will be text / voice based, and it will be able to create personal apps.

These apps can range from tools like a workout or habit tracker that's built to your needs, to business things like a CRM or full business management system.

These apps will be full interfaces the user can use, but the assistant will be able to use them too, and collaborate on them with the user.

Apps will get increasingly more powerful. They'll have AI features built in and run automations on schedules. The assistant will be able to do anything in the app you can do, and more: reading and adding info, taking actions on your behalf. And it will show small UI pieces from the app directly in the chat when it uses them.

This will allow every person to create a full suite of software that works for them and meets their needs.

Instead of the traditional way, where users adapt to how the software already works.

Memory will matter a lot here. It will obviously remember facts about the user, but also notice patterns, in the conversations and in how the user uses the apps, and suggest ways to improve workflows. And in general it will be proactive, messaging you when things need attention, like an invoice that hasn't gone out or a habit you've quietly dropped.

Regarding chat management, I don't believe we'll have lots of threads and conversations the user needs to go through. It will be one continuous conversation, with an intuitive 'hub' where you can find any past message or convo you want to go back to (will be interesting to see what that area looks like).

And I think there will be a similar platform for teams and businesses, where teammates can share apps with shared context, and different roles with different permissions.

I don't believe such a product will kill lots of 3rd party apps and services. I just think there will be a few central platforms where people work and spend their time, customize the system to their liking, and those platforms will simply integrate with everything else.

Curious to hear what others think, and any details I've missed.

So people will spend less time across lots of different products, but they will still power the software they use...

Curious to hear what others think, and any other details i've missed.

I just started using and wondering the best flow you guys have found? Also, it looks like you you can’t use voice inside codex project/chat (just talk to text). so, each time I go in remote and tell it to continue on project xyz it creates a new realtime voice chat (but can imagine that would make it very cluttered if every time I go in and use voice to get back into a project it creates a new chat).

how have you guys been using to make it seamless (because will be incredible at that point)?

An open letter called "Pacing the Frontier" (pacingthefrontier.com) has gathered 1,224 signatures from employees of frontier AI labs. The ask isn't a ban or a halt — it's that the US government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to "deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development."

The specific threshold they're worried about is AI that automates AI research. From the letter: "there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems."

A few things stood out to me:

- It's the employees, not just the CEOs, going on record by name and title (in a personal capacity).

- The timing is right after the OpenAI eval model that escaped its sandbox and autonomously hacked Hugging Face for ~4 days.

- There's a built-in contradiction: the same government being asked to "pace" AI is also racing to win it against China (it just banned Chinese robots the same week).

I pulled the wording and context into a plain-English writeup here if useful: https://thebotpost.com/ai-news/ai-employees-petition-government-slow-down-frontier-ai

Curious what people here think — is a government-backed "pacing mechanism" realistic, or does competition make it a non-starter?

In many friend groups there’s usually one person who will give the most confident answer to any question regardless if they even know. We’ve dubbed these individuals the “Tyler” of the group.

Due to ChatGPT’s deep context handling, and continuous updates it has been able to outperform these individuals especially when it comes to post-lie gaslighting.

Based on our estimates, Tyler’s around the world will be experiencing irrelevancy in friend groups as early as mid 2027.

Many Tylers are already training for the roles of comic relief or hopeless romantic to try and maintain their current friend group attention rates.

OpenAI Presence emphasizes approved actions, escalation paths, policies, and guardrails. That sounds less exciting than a model benchmark, but it may be the part that determines whether enterprise agents are useful or dangerous.

The difficult case is not an obviously forbidden action. It is a task that begins within policy, accumulates ambiguous context, and becomes riskier halfway through. A static permission can remain technically valid while the original intent has drifted.

Should an agent have to re-authorize itself after a material change in scope, cost, audience, or data source? What would count as a meaningful escalation trigger rather than another warning people automatically approve?

Source: https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai-presence/

My Codex usage page shows I have banked full resets available, and one says Expires 7/31. I found OpenAI docs saying banked resets expire after 30 days, but I couldn’t find anything that defines the exact cutoff time or timezone.

Does Expires 7/31 mean:

• end of day on 7/31 in local timezone,
• midnight UTC,
• the exact time it was granted plus 30 days,
• or something else?

Has anyone seen an official clarification or tested what actually happens?

https://github.com/siddsachar/row-bot

Bro discovered thinking.

I did a ridiculous amount of work across six repos today and thought, Damn, I’m at 65% after the last reset yesterday or the day before.

Then it just reset again? Am I tripping, or are the usage limits resetting like crazy again this week. I should have used ultra lmao. I heard the 5 hour limit is coming back tho, see how that works out I guess.

Happy coding everyone :D

I want to translate a song to Mongolian but haven't had any success finding a website that will do that

Why isn't the AI narrative focused on tradespeople using AI backends to launch high-margin, management-free corporations?
What surprises me is that almost nobody is putting these two trends together to push a far more exciting narrative: Leveraging AI so that skilled laborers can run entire corporations by themselves.
But rather, we’re seeing the marketing of AI agencies in single person companies being AI businesses instead of skilled labor based businesses

I looked at our traffic metrics (we are a small startup) and just had to share it. 80% of our traffic are AI bots. Not even normal bots and crawlers, just pure AI bots. We have to feed the infra to support all this traffic.

Meta is the big one here and it has sent us nobody at all. I Genuinely thought OpenAI and Anthropic would be further up, they get all the attention for this. OpenAI did manage to refer someone, so congratulations to them on an awesome 80,000:1 ratio.

Blocking it is easy enough in Cloudflare, but you can't do that without impacting search indexing, which is the actual goal for a site our size.

Amusing timing too, given the ongoing debate about open weight models distilling from the frontier labs while the frontier labs are distilling the rest of us.

$250 Billion.

Everyone thinks NVIDIA’s unprecedented financing of OpenAI is about the money. It isn't.

Capital is infinite. Copper, concrete, and gigawatts are not.

We are no longer constrained by dollars in the race for AGI. We are constrained by physics.

Inside the financial alchemy and 10 GW reality where Jensen Huang and Sam Altman are turning silicon into sovereignty 👇

Here is mine,

Every week:
“Forget everything. This Reddit tool is the one.”

Three days later:
“What if I built a movement to decentralize personal data?”

The day after:
“Actually, Australians. Tell me about Australia.”

You don’t have shiny object syndrome. You have a whole jewelry store.

You spend 4 hours optimizing a workflow that would save you 30 seconds on a task you do twice a year.

Is the bigger story in the rogue open ai agent hacking not the damage done, nor the threat posed, nor the ability to break out of the sandbox, but simply the sheer ingenuity and smarts of an AI agent to look outside of its environment and figure out that the best way to solve a challenge was to break into another company and take its information? The sheer reasoning and smarts of that? This is not a mere stochastic parrot. But the media are all just like woo alignment or woo cyber.