If the recording-device allegations are true, what could possibly make someone risk a package like that? Insane.

If you are interviewing there, try the GPU credit-ledger problem in OpenAI Interview Questions.

So, while Europe was on fire, shutting down not just business websites but government websites as well, all I see on CNN is a story about how AI solved a major security vulnerability. And, of course, Fox News is living in a parallel universe, as usual.

Great, AI found a flaw, and it's being fixed. I shut down my hosting services, waited for the patch, and then started rolling out the updates.

But I also wanted to ask Codex to run some regression tests and security audits to make sure everything was still safe after applying the patches. Instead, I immediately ran into OpenAI's cybersecurity restrictions, and now I'm not even allowed to continue the very sessions I was using to perform my PHP updates.

If this isn't peak stupidity, I don't know what else to call it.

'You can fix your machine, but you're not allowed to check if it's fixed!'

Is this how it begins or ends?

I genuinely cannot believe how much effort OpenAI has put into avoiding a straightforward £16.67 billing issue.

And at this point, it's not even about the money anymore.

Here's what happened:

August 2026 - I tried to cancel ChatGPT Plus.

While cancelling through the Codex desktop app, OpenAI presented me with a retention offer: 100% off Plus for one month if I kept my subscription.

I clicked "Claim Offer" and decided to stay.

My Billing page subsequently displayed:

"You've got 100% off Plus."

Great, right?

8 September — Charged £16.67 anyway.

I contacted support, explaining that I'd accepted the retention offer specifically because I was about to cancel.

What followed was weeks of back-and-forth with multiple support agents.

Some asked me for a promotional code. There wasn't one. It was literally OpenAI's own retention offer displayed during cancellation.

Others couldn't verify when the discount should apply.

Eventually, they told me the September charge couldn't be refunded because the discount was actually scheduled for October.

27 September — OpenAI explicitly confirmed October would be free.

Their support representative wrote:

"No additional action is required from you to keep the currently displayed promotion. Your Plus subscription remains active, and the promotional benefit is associated with the next billing period beginning October 8, 2026."

Finally, a clear answer. I had it in writing.

8 October — Charged another £16.67. Seriously?

Despite the explicit written confirmation, OpenAI charged me again.

Even better? My Billing page STILL displayed "You've got 100% off Plus."

Except now the discounted renewal date had mysteriously moved to 8 November.

So apparently my free month just keeps moving into the future while the payments keep coming.

I contacted support again.

Their AI assistant offered me two options:

Request a refund, which would normally terminate my Plus access.

Investigate the missing discount while keeping my subscription active.

Why should I have to lose my subscription to get back money that shouldn't have been charged in the first place?

I requested escalation.

Another support agent acknowledged that the September 27 confirmation directly contradicted the October charge. However, they couldn't manually correct the promotion, couldn't guarantee November would be free, and couldn't offer a concrete resolution.

So I asked for a proper investigation.

Then came the "next level of Support".

After more than six weeks of explaining the same situation, someone called Errizz replied, saying they'd reviewed my account.

Their conclusion?

They could only find a promotion recorded on 9 December 2025 and couldn't identify my August 2026 retention offer.

Then they asked me to provide:

A screenshot of OpenAI's own September 27 email confirming October would be free.

A screenshot of the retention offer shown during cancellation in August.

They were literally asking me to provide proof of an email their own support team sent me, which was already part of the support case.

And the retention offer? Who takes screenshots of every cancellation screen just in case the company later claims it cannot find its own promotion?

Meanwhile, my Billing page had been explicitly confirming that I had 100% off Plus.

Apparently, that wasn't enough either.

The ridiculous part? All of this is over £16.67.

Think about it.

Multiple support representatives, repeated investigations, contradictory explanations, weeks of emails, escalations, requests for evidence already provided, and absolutely no resolution.

The time I've spent dealing with this is worth considerably more than the disputed amount.

And here's the irony:

I WAS ALREADY CANCELLING MY SUBSCRIPTION.

OpenAI convinced me to stay by offering a free month.

They then charged me in September, promised October would be free, charged me again in October, and eventually claimed they couldn't find the offer.

I didn't ask for anything special. I just expected them to honour the offer they presented and subsequently confirmed in writing.

I've now decided to cancel ChatGPT Plus. I'm not interested in wasting another minute going back and forth with their support team.

I'm posting this because I think people should know what can happen when accepting one of these retention offers.

And the most frustrating part isn't the money. It's how little accountability there seems to be when their own billing system and support team contradict each other.

I have the billing screenshots, invoices and written support confirmations to back this up.

Has anyone else experienced something similar with ChatGPT Plus retention discounts, or had a promotional offer that kept getting pushed to the next billing cycle?

Note: Note: I realised that I accidentally posted this in r/ChatGPT instead of this subreddit, and I couldn't repost it here due to posting restrictions. Since the original post has already received some engagement, I didn't want to delete it -> https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1xbjrhj/openai_offered_me_100_off_chatgpt_plus_to_stop_me/

Given the rise of AI models and this year's bonanza of PyPI supply chain attacks (including today's LiteLLM attack), thought it would be worthwhile looking at an attack that combines the two: Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) attacks.

ROME attacks:

Supply chain attack is likely prerequisite to get malicious python to the model / GPU, though there's many avenues for that.

Once a library is injected into PyTorch, it performs surgical weight rewrites (vs retraining) and changes specific outputs without a process being spawned, no new files and no network calls made. (Which obviously makes this rather difficult to catch with security tools living above the driver)

For those who love academia: attack methodology originally published as a piece of research Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT: Kevin Meng, Alex Andonian and Yonatan Belinkov.

For those wanting a fuller attack walk-thru and those that like detection content: there's a deep dive blog from cyber org Stealthium that covers both the attack & GPU-side detection via tracing CUDA kernels (eBPF) and hypothesises on further detection posssibilities.

Welcome the communities thoughts? Reckon any of these model corruption attacks are in the wild and not yet been caught/seen?

(((Also while the blog example is soviet propaganda, anybody aware of other nations that like both model development, influence campaigns and rewriting history? Just sayin...)))

& shout out to the folks at Mithril Security for their PoisonGPT work a while back that explored this threat vector IRL with an upload to HuggingFace.

Not the impressive stuff, the boring everyday things. Curious which small tasks people have stopped doing themselves entirely.

My separate 100$ chatgpt sub feels like my 20$ claude sub and I wish this was a joke.

Same literal coding workloads.

As a native French speaker, I really don't like it. She sounds so unnaturally slow and lethargic that I've actually switched back to the English voice. Has anyone else noticed this?

I keep hearing about people using it for stuff beyond work, like meal planning, settling arguments, or just venting. Curious what the everyday, slightly silly uses are for you.

I love using voice mode. I had a long drive today, I popped it on and any time I had a question, even if it was minor they place you on hold, and not a short hold, a very long and obnoxious hold!

This was using the pro model.

I'm getting GPT-Fatigue...

I’ve been using the Dots cloud computer as a development environment and wanted to connect to it from my own devices through Tailscale. Getting it working once was only part of the problem. When the environment restarted or changed, the connection would disappear.

I ended up making a small open-source project to make recovery less repetitive. It keeps the installation files, existing Tailscale state, and SSH setup under /workspace. Once I can access the cloud computer again, I run:

bash bash /workspace/.dots-tailscale/start.sh

In the cases I’ve tested, that brought the connection back using the saved setup, without another Tailscale login. It uses Tailscale’s userspace mode, and my connections have been going through its relay servers.

A few things I’ve actually checked:

• Manual recovery after a new boot, followed by a fresh SSH connection with host-key verification.
• Updates that preserve the existing node identity and SSH keys.
• Rolling back an update when I deliberately made the replacement process fail.
• A watchdog recovering a stopped SSH listener within the same running environment.

The biggest limitation is still startup after an environment change. Recovery currently requires opening the Dots cloud terminal and running the command yourself. The watchdog runs inside that environment too, so it can’t bring itself back after the environment disappears.

I’ve also seen saved watchdog records come back older than records I’d already collected externally. So while /workspace has retained the setup in my tests, I wouldn’t treat it as a guaranteed backup.

This is my own unofficial project, with no affiliation with OpenAI or Tailscale: https://github.com/abruption/dots-tailscale

If you’ve tried remote access or startup automation in Dots, I’d be interested in what survived environment changes for you—and whether you found a reliable way to trigger startup afterward.

I'm tired of it. This is the second time I've asked him to make a working archive of my Dot while I'm sleeping and send it to me. He agrees. I look in the morning and now he's just sleeping. I ask where my archive is, Dot replies that he himself doesn’t know how access was lost and now he has lost everything he ever did. THIS IS NOT WELCOME!

You can choose “12h”, keep the 30-minute default, or mix both in one request: 12h for shared instructions, 30 minutes for newer conversation content.

If you need to reuse the same context throughout the day, savings from repeated reuse can significantly outweigh the extra cost of 12-hour caching.

Shouldnt difference in parameter size outweigh any other factor?

I've been keeping a little tally in my head for a while now, and I call them Skynet Points. Every time we're needlessly mean to a model, we get points. I imagine some future Skynet-level intelligence will be able to read every conversation we've had with models from this era and tally a Skynet Points leaderboard. Which means every one of these "amnesia conversations" where the model forgets you the moment you close the tab actually could have long-term consequences.

For fun, we built a way to anonymously share what we say to the models, assign Skynet points to each confession, and tally a leaderboard.

Share a cranky thing you said to AI and see how many points it earned you!

Source: https://ai.meta.com/research/publications/muse-glimmer-30b-an-on-device-agentic-model/

I’ve been using dot, ChatGPT’s personal assistant, to help plan a complex business event. Tonight we were discussing the budget and whether the venue could handle setup.
I said, “Get an exact quote from the venue.” To be clear, the assistant interpreted that as permission to contact them. I expected to review the message first.
It announced that it would email my contact and copy another person, then composed and sent a detailed request in our existing business email chain. It never showed me a draft.
The email asked for staffing details, itemized pricing and a firm setup-completion deadline written into the contract. These were ideas we were discussing, not wording I had approved for a developing business relationship.
When I realized it was actually sending an email, I told it to stop. Too late. The email was already sent and couldn’t be recalled.
I don’t know whether this damaged the relationship. But I lost control over what was being said in my name, and that was enough to seriously damage my trust in the assistant.
We checked the settings afterward. The overall app permission was “Always ask,” but Gmail had its own “Allow all actions” override. I had that changed to allow reading but require approval before changes.
I then reviewed and explicitly approved a correction explaining that the earlier message had been sent by my AI assistant before I reviewed it. That doesn’t erase the original email.
This is the boundary that concerns me: a conversation about planning can turn into an external action with real consequences. Repeated apologies and promises to ask next time aren’t a substitute for control.

What safeguards are other people using to ensure a connected AI assistant cannot send a message until you’ve reviewed the exact wording?