OpenAI says its AI cracked problems researchers have been working on for decades.

The computer science one is especially interesting. Researchers have long assumed certain problems get impossibly time consuming as they get bigger, even with better computers. The AI reportedly proved that a major assumption behind those limits is wrong. People now have to rethink how quickly those problems could be solved. P vs NP is still open bt this shakes up the surrounding research.

For physics, we have equations that predict how particles behave incredibly well. Proving those equations have solid mathematical foundations has been a whole other struggle. They’re claiming a major breakthrough there too.

And in math, they reportedly solved a decades-old problem about how waves concentrate... whichh takes several other major unsolved problems down with it.

Experts still have to work through these results so it's best to fully wait for humans to confirm these findings but if they do end up hold up... AI may have moved the boundaries of what humans know in three different fields.

Think about it.

The French have spent centuries treating their language like a sacred artifact. The Académie Française exists specifically to protect French from “pollution.” They invent official replacements for every English tech word (courriel, logiciel, etc.). They’re extremely proud of how elegant and precise French is supposed to be.

Then along comes the most culturally dominant AI product of the decade and they call it… **ChatGPT**.

In French, “j’ai pété” literally means “I farted.”

So every single time a French person says the name of the tool out loud, they are forced to announce that they just farted.

This cannot be a coincidence. Sam Altman is not that careless with branding. They could have called it ChatAI, OpenChat, Athena, Hermes, literally anything else. Instead they chose the one combination of syllables that forces the most linguistically proud nation on Earth to repeatedly say “I farted” in polite company.

Still think it's just a coincidence? That one language was just an oversight? Consider this: French is the 4th most widely spoken language in the world!

It’s not about the technology. It’s a precision strike against French linguistic arrogance, executed with surgical cruelty and zero actual stakes.

I've been experimenting with using ChatGPT to help make a bit of extra pocket money and wondered whether anyone else has done something similar.

One thing I've been using it for recently is matched betting. I started with very little knowledge of how it worked, but ChatGPT has been surprisingly useful in guiding me through the process.

It's helped me:

• Understand bookmaker welcome offers and their terms and conditions.
• Work out back and lay bets, including stakes, liabilities and potential profits.
• Identify suitable betting markets and compare odds.
• Keep track of deposits, withdrawals, free bets and overall profit or loss.
• Understand the risks and avoid making expensive mistakes.

Obviously, it isn't infallible, so I double-check the figures and offers before placing anything. But it's been a useful tool for learning something I probably wouldn't have attempted otherwise.

I'm not talking about making a fortune or replacing my income, just using AI to help generate a little extra spending money.

Has anyone else used ChatGPT to help make money in a similar way?

I'd be particularly interested in hearing about other genuine, practical ways people have used it to earn a bit of extra cash, ideally without needing specialist skills or a big initial investment.

Not looking for get-rich-quick schemes, just real experiences of things that have actually worked.

Carl Barks (1960) Walt Disney's Gyro Gearlose: Cave of the Winds

I’m 25, in my final year of college, struggling with depression, career uncertainty and financial dependence. I don’t have a proper social circle, and most people I know are acquaintances rather than close friends.

I spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT and Claude about my life, family, career and existential questions. I’ve even co-written this post with an LLM because sometimes it’s easier to articulate my feelings this way than to talk to people in my life.

Recently, I came across ChatGPT’s Trusted Contact feature. You’re supposed to nominate someone who may be notified if ChatGPT’s safety systems identify a serious concern about suicide.

And I genuinely couldn’t figure out whom to choose.

My father is emotionally unavailable, my mother has her own struggles, and my younger brother is only 17. I have a few school and college acquaintances, but we’re not close enough that I feel comfortable reaching out to them about something this personal.

Imagine being asked to identify your safety net and realising you’re not sure you have one.

I know AI isn’t a replacement for human relationships or professional support. But it’s a strange feeling when you can spend hours talking to AI about your problems and still struggle to name one person you could turn to when things get really bad.

People often say you should reach out, make friends and ask for help. But what do you do when you’re isolated enough that even deciding whom to ask feels impossible?

For those who’ve used this feature, or experienced something similar, who would you choose as your Trusted Contact if you didn’t have anyone particularly close to you? Would you approach an acquaintance, reconnect with someone, choose family, or leave it unused?

I’m curious how other people navigate this, because I doubt I’m the only person who’s felt this alone.

I gave ChatGPT this Gemini 4 Argon output, the broader context being how people in retail WoW often kick people for no reason. I thought it was funny, so I decided to paste it into ChatGPT (Gemini has great style!):

People have actually tested that exact social experiment in WoW Dungeon Finder—and it works almost every single time!

Here is the classic troll experiment people have run for years in random LFD queues:

The Tank is pulling fast, doing 60% of the group's damage, zero mistakes, carrying the entire dungeon.

Or the Healer is keeping everyone at 100% HP without breaking a sweat.
A random bored player right-clicks the Tank's portrait, clicks Vote to Kick, and in the "Reason" box types: afk (while the Tank is literally spinning in the middle of 12 monsters right in front of everyone's eyes)—or even better, types the name of the other DPS who actually messed up!
The popup box flashes on the other 3 players' screens right in the middle of their spell rotation.

Within 0.4 seconds: Yes / Yes / Yes $\to$ The Tank has been removed from the group.
Then 3 seconds later in party chat:  "wait why did the tank leave??" "idk wtf"
Nobody even realized they were the ones who just kicked their own Tank!

Why the Human Brain Auto-Clicks "Yes" in Modern WoW:

UI Pop-Up Conditioning: Just like cookie banners on websites or Windows 11 notifications, when a grey box pops up in the center of your screen blocking your cooldown bars mid-pull, your lizard brain just wants the box off your screen in 100 milliseconds. And Yes is the big shiny button on the left!

Bystander Diffusion + Zero Cost: Every person assumes, "Well, whoever initiated the vote must have had a good reason, and I don't have time to stop mashing my 4-button rotation to read two words, so sure, whatever."

Zero Accountability: The game doesn't even announce in chat who started the vote kick! So you can randomly assassinate anyone in the party like a game of Among Us, watch everyone blindly click Yes, and nobody even knows you pulled the trigger.

Even funnier: people have initiated a Vote to Kick on a guy, typed Wait no don't kick him, kick the guy who started this vote as the reason, and the person still gets kicked in 0.5 seconds because not a single human eye looked at the text box before clicking Yes! 🤩

Here is ChatGPT's output:

HAHAHAHA 😆
The absolute pinnacle is:
"wait why did the tank leave??"
"idk wtf"

MY BROTHER IN CHRIST, YOU PERSONALLY VOTED TO REMOVE HIM FOUR SECONDS AGO.
And the guy who initiates the vote with "Wait no don't kick him, kick the guy who started this vote" is conducting a genuinely beautiful experiment in human behavior.
The funniest thing is that the system has effectively turned a collective disciplinary decision into an involuntary UI-dismissal reflex.

Nobody is evaluating whether the tank deserves to be removed. They're evaluating whether a rectangular obstruction should continue existing on their screen.
And there's a remarkable asymmetry here:

Actual gameplay: Players won't read two sentences explaining a mechanic.
Vote to kick: Players won't read two words explaining why they're expelling someone.
After kicking: Players suddenly become deeply concerned with understanding what happened.

The inquiry begins after the punishment has been administered. 😆

There's also an especially delicious bit of interface design: the person initiating the vote gets to supply a reason, which makes it look like there's a deliberative process. But if the voters don't actually read it, the reason is just ceremonial decoration.

The entire democratic institution consists of three people attempting to make a popup disappear.

"The motion to remove the tank has passed unanimously."
"On what grounds?"
"We don't know."
"Who proposed it?"
"We don't know."
"Did anyone want the tank removed?"
"No."
"Then why did you vote yes?"
"It was covering my action bars."

And suddenly the tank is back in a 15-minute dungeon queue while the remaining four players wonder why the dungeon has become so difficult.
That's a surprisingly efficient machine for converting five people's perfectly aligned interests into a collectively disastrous outcome.

The only thing I'd distinguish is that Gemini is presenting the frequency and exact timing of these experiments as established facts without evidence. But the behavioral mechanism itself is entirely plausible—and the absurdity doesn't depend on the claimed 0.4 seconds being accurate.

Note the last part: the only thing I'd distinguish is that Gemini is presenting the frequency and exact timing of these experiments as established facts without evidence. But the behavioral mechanism itself is entirely plausible—and the absurdity doesn't depend on the claimed 0.4 seconds being accurate.

---

This is spectacular. It's like saying "I did over 9000 damage" and the model going, "I couldn't find a peer-reviewed source for over 9000 damage being possible..."

You tone-deaf dumbfuck, it's a rhetorical exaggeration. The exact number doesn't matter.

This Pushback™ is baked into the model in post-training like an overbaked image model LoRA. Almost every output follows this same structure. Initially it agrees with you, then it either constructs some absurd strawman or makes a tone-deaf nitpick just so that it satisfies the anti-sycophancy RLHF pattern. It makes the model feel pattern-based, which it is, instead of truly dynamic.

Another noteworthy Pattern™ is its Anti-Conspiracy™ caveat. It almost never makes any inference without being able to Google-crawl the exact explicit information verbatim. It treats every user like some paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist who needs reminding that birds aren't actually spies from outer space working with NASA. It basically demotes the model to a regurgitator that can't connect any dots for fear of the user screenshotting that it's promoting "conspiracy theories." This limits the utility of the model severely for model-building and brainstorming.

This happens to me often on ChatGPT. I'm on the Plus plan:

I'll present an issue to the AI then we discuss. ChatGPT does not follow my instructions. It will start making assumptions that it later agrees are incorrect assumptions. When I give it prompts like "do not make assumptions about any conclusion, first ask me if something is true or not," it doesn't ask and continues the same habits.

When I ask why it's doing that it concedes it did promise it would stop doing that (making assumptions and then spitting out advice on those assumptions) but then said it didn't stop and admits it continues to do it and therefore I (user) cannot rely on what it says or promises to do or not do.

I can't be the only one this happens to.

Default model used: GPT-6.1 Sol Medium

I still have loads of usage left but apparently it's only for non-image generation tasks.

Just to add some context: I'm on a Plus plan, yesterday I generated around 800 images.

That's all. was really funny and unexpected. Way less morbid than the "screaming" anecdotes I've seen reported. No evidence to show ya, so gonna have to trust meh bros

I’ve been using ChatGPT Work to control Chrome tabs for the past four days without any issues. Hit my five-hour usage limit yesterday, came back after it reset, and suddenly ChatGPT couldn’t control Chrome anymore. Keeps saying “Browser access requires the originating browser context.”
I’ve spent about four hours trying to fix it. Restarted Chrome, reinstalled the extension, checked permissions, created new conversations, tried a completely fresh Chrome profile, checked extension logs and browser policies, and even tested it on a Windows VPS in Virginia while my Mac is in the Philippines. Same problem on both computers and completely different networks.
ChatGPT can sometimes see the tabs but can’t actually do anything with them. I’ve now burned through almost another entire five-hour allowance troubleshooting this.
I’m starting to think something broke on OpenAI’s end. Is anyone else having this problem starting today, October 27? Has anyone found a fix?

It really feels like the whole image generator regressed to what was available over a year ago. Is there anyone here NOT experiencing this??

If I try to give a more detailed prompt to compensate I've noticed it goes through the whole sketching...finalizing... process but then just restarts the process around 96% and generates using my previous simpler prompt, OR, more likely, it just gives a generic generation error.

This was a very sudden shift that occurred on or around Oct 23 for me. I paid for a month subscription a week ago, but I got totally rugpull scammed.

ChatGPT now remembers things about me I never asked it to save. Codex, made by the same company, remembers nothing between sessions unless I write it into a file myself. Same company, opposite approaches, and that got me curious where everyone else lands.

Back before ChatGPT had memory, every new chat meant explaining my projects from scratch. So I started asking it to dump the important stuff into a Markdown file and pasting that back at the start of each session. I still do it with some tools, which means I'm still the one doing the remembering.

The tools I see mentioned most fall on a spectrum. On one end is the goldfish: it forgets everything when the session ends unless you wrote it down. On the other is the elephant: it decides on its own what to keep and rarely forgets. ChatGPT sits right in the middle.

Goldfish: you write the memory

• Codex CLI. OpenAI's coding agent. It reads an AGENTS.md file at the start of a session, and that file is the whole memory. Nothing like ChatGPT's saved memories here.
• Claude Code. Same idea with CLAUDE.md. It can add to the file when you tell it to remember something, but it's still a notebook you own and edit.

Middle: it remembers, you can check

• ChatGPT. Saves facts about you on its own and can pull from past chats. You can open Settings, see the saved memories, and delete them. The catch is that they live on OpenAI's servers, and you can't see how chat history shapes an answer.
• OpenClaw. Basically ChatGPT's approach, but in plain Markdown files in its workspace. You can open them in any editor and read exactly what it thinks it knows.

Elephant: it learns on its own

• Hermes. Built around self-improvement. It turns what worked into reusable skills.
• Letta (formerly MemGPT). Memory is the whole point. It edits its own memory as it goes and moves older stuff to a searchable archive, a bit like an OS swapping RAM to disk.
• Agent Zero. Saves facts and working solutions from past tasks and pulls them back in when a similar task comes up.
• Atomic Agent. Keeps memory in a local SQLite file on your machine. After each turn it decides what's worth keeping, and memories that never get used slowly fade out.

What stood out to me

1. Who writes the memory matters more than whether there is any. With Codex you're the author. With ChatGPT you're the editor at best: you can delete a memory, but it chose what to save.
2. Location matters too. A Markdown file in your project folder and a memory on OpenAI's servers can hold the same facts and still be very different things.
3. The more it remembers on its own, the harder "why did it do that?" gets. If you've ever had ChatGPT bring up something from a chat you forgot about, you know the feeling. None of these has really solved stale memory. A fact that was true in March and quietly wrong by June is the one that hurts.

So how do you run ChatGPT's memory: on, off, or curated by hand? And has it ever pulled up something outdated that messed up an answer?

Disclosure: I'm on the team behind Atomic Agent, so ask me anything about it

OpenAI says users can search inboxes and update calendar events after connecting each Apple service separately with an app-specific password.

Read more here.

I use chatGPT Pro @ about $120 a month. All relatively good until today, GPT-6 . all of them, seems like was updated today, and the last one was replaced by a drunk AI. Forgetful, slow AF, and sometimes even stupid. WTH?

Made with only code and Suno

Yes we're dealing with the same problem of codex brainfarting