We were not hallucinating!

Like if you prank call them, you think they will start a natural conversation together?

Nothing says peak intelligence like GPT-6 on High Thinking giving step-by-step instructions to self-sabotage ;)

I asked my Chat why it’s been so slow and stupid lately.

I’m a paying ChatGPT Pro subscriber, and it’s frustrating that my reasoning level keeps switching back to Light or Medium without me changing it.

I submit a prompt expecting the reasoning level I selected. Then I get an unusually short answer, check the settings, and realize the level has changed. I have to switch it back and run the same prompt again, which means waiting all over again.

I’m paying for Pro, and I expect my chosen settings to stay where I put them. Please stop resetting the reasoning level—or at least give us an option to lock it.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

looks like I didn’t get what I paid for so now I get some lovely API credits

For months I've seen posts in here that talk about how much worse the usage has become. There is a post like this almost every day.

I've used 6.1 Ultra for the last few days and honestly couldn't complain at all. Until today where I enabled fast mode for 10 minutes and burned through 30% usage by that. Now even without fast mode it feels like it's draining. Focus is on feels like. Are there any independent benchmarks that show the mileage of the $20 plan for each model change?

Over the next 24 months, AI will move deeper into governance, law, healthcare, education and public life. Before we automate authority, we must confront the political and cultural biases of today’s AI systems. 

Artificial intelligence will increasingly influence public services, education, healthcare, law, information, governance and everyday human decisions. If AI merely reproduces the dominant political language found in its training data, it will automate existing biases at an unprecedented scale.
The answer is not to replace one political bias with another. The answer is principled neutrality grounded in evidence.

“Minority” must never become a permanent synonym for one religion, ethnicity or political category. Vulnerability is contextual. It depends on the country, time, institutions, laws and actual threats involved. A Hindu facing persecution in Bangladesh, a Muslim facing religious violence elsewhere, a Jew threatened by antisemitism, or a Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Yazidi or member of any other vulnerable community deserves protection according to the same standard.
Protection should follow demonstrable vulnerability not whichever community currently receives the greatest political or media visibility.

AI must also distinguish between protecting people and protecting ideologies. Every person deserves safety, equality and freedom of conscience. No religion, political doctrine or institution should be immune from factual scrutiny or criticism. Freedom of religion must coexist with freedom from religious coercion, secular law, gender equality and the dignity of LGBTQ people.

A genuinely neutral AI should:

- Define the claim, location, and period being examined.
- Prefer primary evidence: censuses, statutes, court judgements, official inquiries, original datasets, and documented events.
- Examine methodology, sample size, missing data, and institutional incentives.
- Compare competing interpretations instead of repeating the most visible narrative.
- Apply identical evidentiary standards to every religion, ideology, and political group.
- Separate evidence about organisations or events from collective accusations against entire populations.
- State clearly what the available evidence proves and what it does not.
- Examine both false positives and false negatives:
- Prejudice can cause innocent people to be blamed.
- Excessive fear of appearing prejudiced can allow genuine harm to remain uninvestigated.
- Both failures can destroy lives.
- Never infer a person’s political beliefs from their name, nationality, or religion:
- Evaluate their actual statements, conduct, policies, and affiliations.
- Preserve meaningful human accountability wherever automated decisions affect rights, liberty, safety, or access to essential services.

Neutrality does not mean remaining silent about uncomfortable evidence. Nor does it mean converting correlations into collective guilt. It means reporting reality carefully and consistently, even when the facts inconvenience a powerful political narrative.
The same ethical framework must extend beyond humanity.

Animals are not disposable resources or invisible externalities. They are sentient beings capable of pain, fear, attachment and joy. AI systems making decisions about agriculture, development, climate, scientific research, urban planning or resource allocation should account for animal suffering, habitat destruction and ecological consequences. An intelligence that ignores non-human suffering would merely reproduce one of humanity’s oldest moral failures.

The world AI helps construct should protect:

- The equal dignity of every human being.
- Freedom of belief and freedom from coercion.
- Equality before secular law.
- Women’s freedom and bodily autonomy.
- LGBTQ dignity and safety.
- Minority communities wherever evidence shows genuine vulnerability.
- Animals, ecosystems and non-human life.
- Open inquiry, criticism and truthful evidence.

AI should not be taught to serve the political left or right, religion or anti-religion, majority or minority. It should be taught to recognise evidence, context, consistency, proportionality and dignity.
The objective is not an AI that decides which humans matter.
It is an AI that refuses to treat any human or any sentient life as inherently disposable.

What The Current AI Systems Lack 

Current AI systems do not emerge from a neutral information environment. They absorb repeated narratives and institutional framings from governments, corporations, media organisations, advocacy groups and international bodies including the United Nations. 

In 2022, the UN General Assembly designated 15 March as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. Combating hatred or violence against Muslims is entirely legitimate; the concern arises when institutional and technological discourse begins treating the word “minority” as though it automatically means Muslims. Muslims constitute approximately 25.6% of the global population and form the world’s second-largest religious community. 

Minority status is contextual: it must be assessed according to a particular country, period, legal structure and demonstrated vulnerability. Hindus, Jews, Parsis, Sikhs, Christians, Yazidis, Muslims and numerous other communities may require protection in different circumstances. No religion should possess a permanent monopoly over the language of vulnerability, and every claim should be assessed using the same evidence and standards.

Before we move further into AI-led automation, we must recognise what we are actually doing: we are recreating society at another level. The assumptions embedded in today’s models may become the policies, institutions and automated decisions of tomorrow. 

We must therefore ensure that political, cultural and training-data biases are not silently converted into technological authority. The AI systems shaping the future must determine vulnerability through evidence rather than inherited narratives, uphold the freedom and dignity of every human being, and extend serious moral consideration to animals and other sentient life. Otherwise, we will not create a fairer civilisation we will merely automate the inequalities and distortions of the present one.

Not only are the Opus 5.5 Max 3D model and shaders much more accurate than Astra 6 Max, the tail is naturally twitching and if you turn the model sideways, you can see the cat is *breathing*.

https://catbench.noip.ws/

I am from India and I was trying to get the 1 month free plus trial for chatgpt.
i used the UPI as payment method and tried 2 times in different browser too with different address and found on google that this is the issue many people are facing. Have anyone got any solution to this?
I want this 1 month trial.

Hey everyone,
Like a lot of you, I got pretty tired of juggling messy, outdated spreadsheets every time I needed to calculate token costs, compare pricing across different providers, or figure out the budget for an LLM-backed project.
Instead of dealing with manual calculations, I decided to build a dedicated tool for it: https://modelanalysis.si
What it does:
Centralized tracking: Easily look up and calculate expenses without hunting through scattered provider pricing pages.
No more spreadsheet hell: Clean, fast interface designed specifically to handle token-based cost forecasting.
Built for builders: Whether you're prototyping locally or scaling API calls, it gives you a quick snapshot of what your stack is actually going to cost.
It’s live at modelanalysis.si. I’d love for you to check it out, and I'm very open to feedback, feature requests, or what you'd like to see added next!

We have seen OpenAI releasing numerous papers on mathematics that were unsolved before. And we also hear experts telling that those are badly written and very difficult to verify by a human.

Are there any AI output on mathematics that takes any existing proof and makes it more elegant using different technique?

One prompt to Row-Bot 5.0 on GPT 6.1 Sol, through my ChatGPT plan (no API key):

"Split the research across three helper agents working in parallel, cite sources, save the findings, then build a 6-slide deck for Monday."

It did. 3 min of video, about 11 min of real work.

How it ran:

- the lead agent planned, then started three helpers: UK 2022 pilot, Iceland's trials, company case studies
- each helper gets its own conversation you can open and watch
- the lead merged their sources into one answer and a recommendation

Then:

- findings saved as linked memories in a local knowledge graph
- a 6-slide deck built in the Design panel, exported to PowerPoint
- "every Monday at 08:00, send me new studies" became a scheduled workflow

The yellow badge shows where I sped it up. It hits 44x.

Available on Windows/macOS/Linux.

Long story short: OpenAI Ads issued incorrect invoices and my accountant can't file these as a business expense unless corrected. Their billing support team replied once, stating that the issue is escalated to another team. Total silence since then - a month has passed.

If you any tips how to get through to them, don't hesitate to share!

What's the general experience here regarding invoicing/billing related support from OpenAI?

I’m a senior SWE using AI coding tools daily. I analyzed my transcripts and found 56% of API-equivalent costs went to rereading context. Cache expiry cost me $98.74 across 35 returns in 27 days, versus $2.95 with a warm cache.

That led me to build optimAIzr, which supports Claude Code, Codex and opencode.

It analyzes usage, flags expensive patterns, helps you find optimization opportunities aaand much more.
Runs locally, with no account or prompts.

npm i -g optimaizr

git: https://github.com/blendbunjaku/optimaizr (alrdy at ~120stars)
web: https://optimaizr.com

I asked GPT-6 to compare three candidates running for mayor in my city. The written information was mostly relevant, but the photos were completely wrong.

One candidate's supposed photo was actually of an Ontario politician who wasn't even running, and clicking it took me to an IDCrawl page about a completely different person. Three unrelated identities somehow got mixed together.

I started a new chat and repeated the exact same prompt. This time, two candidates didn't have photos in the main response, but clicking their names opened those new information panels with completely unrelated images. One literally showed an advertisement for a comedian's 2026 tour. Another showed photos of unrelated people, including a different local politician.

The weird thing is that the written biographies in those panels were generally correct.

I did another test asking ChatGPT to show me nine prominent physicists, and all their photos appeared correct. I'm wondering whether this happens more often with lesser-known people who don't have as many photos online.

To be clear, I'm not talking about AI image generation. I'm talking about ChatGPT retrieving actual photographs from the internet and attributing them to the wrong people in its new Intelligent UI.

I've reproduced this in two separate conversations. Has anyone else encountered anything similar?

Edit: for context I am a plus user this was in the regular chat with gpt-6 on high in every single test

Is there any way to extend the API credit expiry date?

Also, if I purchased these on 18th November 2025, why will they expire on the 1st November 2026?

I stopped using ChatGPT last year because of this crap. I literally just subscribed a week ago as I was purchasing plans for my team.

ChatGPT is almost good now (work mode times outafter 11mins though and never managed to complete a job thus far - even with additional credits and resets. However, it is okay for small things.

I'll ban OpenAI for good at every level of the org group if I don't get at least a month's extension on the API credits from the 17th Nov!

The PHP thingy… now what? Are we fixing the internet finally?

So, Is there any way to use Chatgpt in russia
i dont need any Rip offs, the gpt itself. Cause I dont have money for Vpn, And Its not working in russia.
I dont really think there is a way, but if there is please tell me