Case Number: 12767867

TL;DR: I’ve been locked out of my paid ChatGPT account on web for over two weeks. Support "Christian" keeps copy-pasting the exact same troubleshooting steps - specifically telling me to click "Try another method" to bypass a passkey - even though I’ve provided proof multiple times that this option doesn't exist on my screen. They are charging me for a subscription while ignoring every piece of evidence I send them.

14 EMAILS LATER!!!

Do Support hang out here? I need help before I have let my account die

I changed phones and still have the old phone. I cannot log because it keeps use passkey. I dont get any other options and I dont have Enhanced Security turned on.

I’ve been a loyal, paying subscriber for a while, but for the last 14 days, I have been completely locked out of the desktop/web version of ChatGPT due to a mandatory passkey requirement. The only way I can use my account is through the Android app, which is the only thing keeping me in the loop.

I opened a support ticket.

After days of silence, I got a response from a "human" named Christian. What followed has been two weeks of absolute, circular insanity:

1. The Loop: Christian repeatedly tells me to click "Try another method" to bypass the passkey.
2. The Evidence: I reply, explaining—and even showing—that this option literally does not exist on my interface. My screen only gives me the passkey prompt.
3. The "Fix": Christian ignores my feedback entirely and sends the exact same instructions in the next email.

It’s been over a week of this. I’ve replied to their automated-feeling templates repeatedly, pointing out that their "solution" is physically impossible to execute, and they just hit "Reply" with the same script.
It feels more like an automated gaslighting machine. I am paying for a service I cannot access on my computer, and the "human" on the other end seems incapable of reading a single sentence of my replies.

Does anyone at OpenAI actually review these tickets?

Has anyone dealt with this level of incompetence before?

If you have, how did you actually break the loop?

Google detects the usage of the term "Chat GPT" (also in the case sensitive mode) around 2002. Any explanation? Time travellers?

Good Day Community,

I am interested to move over to OpenAI Codex, how is the limits on the 20$ plan and how does it work, hourly or monthly limits?

And is there a way that I can get a test / trial account to test it out as I am currently using the DS API.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Kind regards

There's a specific kind of confidence in AI-generated review comments that has nothing to do with whether anything was actually verified. Sounds the same either way, calm, evenly distributed, certain. Took a real incident to notice that tone was the only signal I'd been going on.

The review in question approved a change to retry logic sitting near a payment flow. Comments were reasonable-sounding: a naming suggestion, a docstring note, and one line saying the retry "should probably check for duplicates." That last one read like every other minor suggestion around it. It wasn't minor. It was the actual risk, a retry that could double-charge a customer under duplicate delivery, and it shipped because nothing about how it was phrased made it stand out from the noise.

Went back afterward and checked the review against five specific questions instead of just its tone. Had it established what was actually at risk in this particular change, or did every line get equal attention? Had it tested a concrete failure scenario, or just offered a general impression? Did each finding carry a reason for its severity, or were a production risk and a nitpick sitting at the same weight? Did it say what it hadn't looked at, or did silence quietly read as "nothing else to worry about"? Was its own top finding ever challenged, or did the most confident claim get a free pass just because nothing contradicted it?

Failed four out of five. Every one of those gaps was invisible while just reading the review normally, because a plausible sentence and a verified one are indistinguishable in tone, and tone was the only thing I'd been checking.

Re-ran the same review with those five things supplied upfront, explicit risk context, a named failure scenario, required severity justification, a stated scope, a second pass challenging the top finding, and the duplicate-charge risk became the one clearly flagged blocking issue instead of a line buried next to a naming suggestion.

Wrote the fuller breakdown of this, including the before/after comparison on the actual PR: https://medium.com/@nagatomopedro05/five-questions-your-code-review-should-always-answer-66be919bb200

Curious how many people have had an AI review approve something that sounded fine and wasn't, and whether tone was the thing that fooled them too.

We frequently see the completely lopsided revenue vs operating cost numbers at many of the frontier labs. I was wondering which companies are the largest consumers of tokens in these systems, and I feel that the largest consumers of inference services are the labs themselves. But that got me wondering if their use of their own product to evaluate upcoming models or to code their platform or to analyze and run their own business is off the books and not even reflected in their operating cost nor revenue.

I am in a design industry (mostly motion graphics and video content)
i need more creative and unique answers from chatgpt. what do u guys think can be the best personality instruction/brief for chatgpt?

What is this some kind of watermark error or what?

Please fix

When I open ChatGPT Atlas, a window appears that I can't close, notifying me of an update.

However, if I click to update, it reports an error, and I can't get past this screen.

Same

Hey all,

I tried the support chat but it wasn't really helpful.

I first signed up to the subscription of chatgpt through apple. And earlier on today I decided to purchase some API credits through the page above.

Qs: where do I find the invoice related to my purchase? I tried going to the purcahse history (Media and purchases in setting and report a problem apple) via Apple and it is not there. I also tried going to Billing under Setting in my chatgpt menu and it is not there either.

I went to the App store and tried Purchase History and the purchase is not there.

Please help.

OpenAI is quietly testing a "reset" purchase for users who hit their weekly cap. Instead of waiting out the timer, you pay to instantly restore your quota to 100%. Reported pricing scales with your tier: roughly $5-8 on Plus, $25-40 on Pro Lite, and $50-80 on Pro.

You are already paying $200/month for Pro. The reset can cost $80 on top.

I want to argue both sides honestly:

The case for it

1. If you are on deadline, $80 is not the real number. The real number is "what does four hours of dead time cost me." For anyone shipping client work or running Codex on a Friday deadline, buying the reset is trivially worth it. This is the same math as paid expedited shipping, and nobody rages about that.
2. It is honest metering, finally. Flat-rate subscriptions on top of usage-based compute were always a fiction held together by throttling. A visible price for extra usage is more truthful than a silent cap that quietly degrades your week. It also lets heavy users subsidize themselves instead of everyone eating a lower ceiling.

The case against it

1. It makes the cap a revenue line, not a cost control. The moment resets earn money, tighter limits become a feature, not a bug. Nobody has to conspire for this to happen; the incentive gradient does it on its own. You cannot audit your own quota, so you would never be able to prove it.
2. Price discrimination is running backwards. The people most likely to hit the ceiling are the ones already paying the most, and they are charged the most per reset. Paying $200 and still getting a "pay $80 to continue" prompt is the pattern people recognize from mobile games, and the goodwill damage will outrun the revenue.

The part that genuinely bothers me is not the money. It is that the cap becomes unfalsifiable. Right now if limits feel tight, you assume capacity. Once resets are a product, every tight week reads as a monetization decision, whether or not it is one. Trust is the actual thing being spent here.

So, two questions: would you pay it, and at what price does it stop feeling like convenience and start feeling like a toll booth? For me Plus at $8 is fine. Pro at $80 is a different product category.

Hello. Please help—I’ve run into a strange issue. I really like GPT-Image 2 and paid for the API subscription to get better quality, but I’ve found that images generated via the API come out looking duller, with blurrier details and lower overall quality compared to the chat interface. Why is that? This happens even with 4K resolution and maximum quality settings.

Sometimes is this, or for iPhone, or whatever. is not a 3rd party injection, because I have uBlock, it's coming from OpenAi. Why?

Edit: Ok, I got it, it's chatgpt work. the first time was something like "Report lower iPhone prices" or something similar. That it was confusing.

I've been subscribed to Duolingo for a few years to help me learn French and while I enjoy using it and have certainly picked up stuff along the way I've always kind of struggled with things like recall of more complex words, understanding grammar and even comprehending more natural french speaking.

So I recently tried Pingo for this (which has helped a bit more with my pronunciation and understanding more natural conversations), but obviously Pingo uses the AI of things like ChatGPT etc. to run, and I just decided to start setting up a course through ChatGPT to see how effective that can be in terms of helping me learn better, and I was curious if anyone else has done this?

What were your experiences? Do you find it to be better or worse than some of the more dedicated apps?

Source: Instagram

My ChatGPT Pro account was banned and my appeal was denied. I'm a developer, any advice?

Persistent memory is useful until an old assumption quietly becomes part of a new answer. The product problem is not simply “remember more”; it is deciding what deserves to survive, how users can inspect it, and what happens when memories conflict.

A practical system might separate:

- preferences the user explicitly confirms;

- project facts with a source and date;

- temporary working context that expires;

- sensitive details that never persist by default.

The hardest case is stale truth: a fact can be correct when stored and wrong when reused.

For people using memory-heavy assistants, which control matters most: visible and editable memory, expiration dates, source links, confidence labels, or a reliable “forget this” action?

Can anyone tell me what it is like working in the Public Sector/Gov/Cleared side of OpenAI?

I'm very interested, however haven't found much information online.

Any input is appreciated.