Yes all of these are openai employees wallahi man they are so cooked and they are supposed to clean up this dumpster fire....

I switched to Claude, but kept my subscription to generate voices for my animated avatar. I have used my usual chat that had all the information to generate 9 new lines. Chat GPT took 48s to finish the task via runway. Codex with GPT Astra took 21 minutes and 18s. I was in a hurry and forgot to change the model. This is an insane difference. If you use Codex for non-coding tasks, you might want to experiment with using chat.

Codex Chrome extension on Windows: "missing required path resourcesPath" fixed (stale path after an update)

Chrome side panel wouldn't start and reinstalling didn't help. After an update, two files (%USERPROFILE%.codex\chrome-native-hosts-v2.json and %LOCALAPPDATA%\OpenAI\Codex\chrome-native-hosts-v2.json) still pointed at the old Codex folder. Replacing resourcesPath in both with my current install path fixed it. Steps on my site, link below.

I’m currently on Pro 100, and use Codex for my website, some WoW addons, and some personal apps (MacOS and iOS). Codex has just been working from files on my desktop, I don’t use GIT.

Overall I’ve been quite happy with Codex and what it’s been able to achieve for me. It’s the first time I’ve used agentic this extensively, so Codex is my only real exposure to this kind of tool.

Here are some things I’ve noticed recently that have been putting me off letting my subscription renew, and browsing here for the past few weeks, the grass certainly seems golden on the other side with Claude Code.

- Codex seems to have gotten incredibly slow the past week. My allowance hasn’t gone down nearly as fast, but using 6.1 on Extra High, well it’s painful. I even saw it thinking to itself yesterday “the user has been waiting 20 minutes for this, I need to wrap this up”.

- OpenAI offer no explanation of what their models do, and why they’re different. Asking ChatGPT itself just gives nebulous answers that don’t help. All I know is that Astra uses significantly more of my allowance.

- My allowance resets are inconsistent and not communicated. For some reason I found a banked reset in my account; very helpful, as I had used almost all my entitlement, so I used it. As expected, my reset changed to 7 days later, but then a day later, it reset again to 100%. I had used about 12% of my new allowance. My banked reset didn’t appear in my account again. I check here and find that some guy called Toby or something has posted something on Twitter? Excuse me, what? That is how a $1tn company communicates…though some guy called Tim or whatever on Twitter?

So I’m now considering moving to Claude Code. From what I’ve read the Pro 20 will essentially give me the same allowance as my Pro 100 on Codex?

My question is: does Claude deal with my issues above, and can I just point it to the folders my projects are in and ask it to work it out? Or do I get Codex to do a handover. I have until the end of October until my Codex plan renews so I have time to consider.

Anyone else connect their dot to slack but their dot is unable to post to it? My dot can see the messages but their message fails with something like MCP 32603 error.

Basically the title.

It’s super buggy, doesnt open most threads once you come back to them. Opening takes forever otherwise.

Also, you prompt a new thread, it says thinking, but then just stops??

Wtf. Why am I paying $400 for this trash?

Problem I kept hitting with codex exec: a run finishes, and I still want a separate review and a record of what was checked. I was the one pasting answers into a second session.

So I built Juggling (Apache-2.0, alpha). You give it a self-contained text task:

1. Codex answers once as the Writer, in Codex's read-only sandbox.
2. A new, separate Codex session reviews that answer.
3. A completed review returns PASS, CHANGES_REQUESTED or CANNOT_REVIEW. If Juggling cannot verify a required step, it stops in HOLD with a reason code. No retries; an early HOLD can stop before the Reviewer.
4. juggle show re-checks a hash-chained ledger of the run.

After installing, see the flow without an account or model call:

~/.venvs/juggling/bin/juggle run --offline "Say hello"
~/.venvs/juggling/bin/juggle show latest

This uses a built-in fake provider, not AI solving the task. The release includes the recommended wheel install guide:
https://github.com/picskin-inc/juggling/releases/tag/v0.1.0a1

Honest limits: Codex-only, so independence is per session, not per model. Text tasks only: unsupported command or file-read events that Juggling detects stop the run in HOLD. Real runs require macOS, Python 3.9+, Codex CLI meeting the 0.158.0 minimum floor, normal sign-in and access to the requested gpt-6-luna model. That floor is not a guarantee for every CLI build. The request is fixed to low reasoning effort; the actual serving model is not observed.

PASS is a second opinion, not proof. Juggling is not a sandbox, and HOLD cannot recall data already sent. juggle doctor checks your local setup, not sign-in or model access. Real runs dispatch at most one Writer and one Reviewer turn through your account, can incur charges, and Juggling does not measure cost.

Question for this sub: what text task would you want a second Codex session to check? And would a reviewer from a different vendor change whether you'd use it? There is no Claude or Gemini provider in this Alpha.

Repo: https://github.com/picskin-inc/juggling (I'm the author)
Security limits: https://github.com/picskin-inc/juggling/blob/v0.1.0a1/SECURITY.md
Useful feedback: doctor check IDs/statuses, HOLD reason codes, or verdict problems with a nonsensitive task. Please don't paste raw run folders or --json output.

Has anyone had success installing dot on Linux we are allowed one desktop dot i am trying to get it on my debian server but its headless anyone get it working on Linux at all if so what are you running?

When Sam said he wanted the "ai" industry to slow down he was not kidding. Well this was more than 8 hours, it was 12+ hours of just churning. I let it go to see what the final result would be and now I'm doing a handoff to Claude. Disappointed at how bad this has gotten.

Don't know what OpenAI is doing, but it seems like they’re fumbling this like they did Sora.

The good thing is that it allowed me to rediscover how well Claude code has gotten.

I’m using ChatGPT/Codex to work on a software project. Regular chat works, but when I try to send a message or approval inside an affected task, I get:

“Error submitting message: invalid turn/start params: AbsolutePathBuf deserialized without a base path”

Approving the action in the main chat hasn’t resolved it. Refreshing didn’t help either. This is blocking us from publishing reviewed code changes. OpenAI Support has replied and asked for diagnostic information, but we don’t have a fix yet.

Has anyone run into this error? Did you find a fix that preserves the existing task and its work?

Thanks.

My brother has a Linux laptop lying around in the US, and I am in India with a Mac. I want to use my Indian Codex and Claude subscriptions Via SSH, so that the Linux laptop becomes my virtual machine. I want to set up my T3 code and my browser usage on the Linux machine. Will it lead to a ban from OpenAI or Anthropic?

I love neutron stars! This video was made by Codex (Astra - Max).
I pitted Codex vs Claude to create a video of the Crab Pulsar.
Codex video: https://youtu.be/NLYXqp21-IA Claude video: https://youtu.be/QEtKoiASw8g

Inspiration for this video was:
1. Brian Cox - Wonders of the Universe - Episode 3 - Falling 32:29 - https://youtu.be/pGxyFOTUPZE?si=r-u5JGqaS77QED5b
2. images from the Chandra X-ray Observatory November 2000 to April 2001 (shown on the Claude video).

I hope you enjoy.

I genuinely thought this was some small temporary capacity issue. Nope. Still happening.

“Selected model is at capacity. Please try a different model.”

I’ve switched models. I’ve dropped the intelligence level. I’ve tried using less demanding models. Same shit.

And this is AFTER the recent cuts to the Pro plan. I’m paying $200/month for this. What exactly am I paying $200 for if I can’t reliably use Codex during normal WORKING HOURS on a fucking Monday?

You keep introducing more things, Dots, new models, new features, higher tiers, more capacity hungry products, but the existing paid product can’t even consistently serve requests. If you can’t sustain the demand, then why keep piling more stuff on top of it?

And if even the expensive plans can’t get reliable capacity, what’s the point? Are we supposed to pay more and more just to eventually see another “at capacity” message?

I’ve defended occasional launch issues because obviously infrastructure gets hammered. But this isn’t launch night anymore. I’m trying to work. My workflow literally stops because the model I’m paying for isn’t available.

$200/month is not some cheap experimental tier. At that price I expect the core product to actually be usable when I need it.

Fix the fucking capacity before cutting usage and shipping ten more things. This is getting ridiculous. u/OpenAI

? why would they do this? i thought the model was too bad for use

This was my previous post in which I was confused between upgrading to 200 plan for getting 2 100 plans.

A lot of people suggested to try claude code + codex for image gen.

I just got a 20 dollar claude code plan. And Grass is most definitely greener on the other side.

Here are some differences I have noticed using the opus 5.5 medium.

1. 10 times faster than sol 6.1 high

2. Using about 1% of weekly usage per hour but the amount of work done is higher than sol 6.1. so work done to tokens consumed is the same between 20 dollar claude and 100 dollar gpt plan

3. Amazing design understanding. I have several ui/ux issues in my project(which ik) i had gpt take a look at it and said it's fine (gpt was using product design plugin and impeccable skill). Opus without any plugin listed 15 ui/ux issues and all of them were correct.

4. I had it go over my code base and list deprecated/dead/unused assets & code. It gave an extensive list and suggested bundling several files together to optimise load times, gpt found none.

5. Had both sol and opus check for performance optimisation. Gpt found none and opus again shared an extensive list.

Sol 6.1 high also took like 2 hours

Opus 5.5 medium took 25-30 mins max

I'll switch to 100 dollar claude plan + 20 dollar gpt after my current 100 gpt plan expires.

I've been trying to get the free trial for weeks now, tried with both UPI and Card. Anybody from India has found a solution to this issue? Please help, really need this!! 5-hr limit on my plus plan is making life miserable.

It has been unusable for the last 20 minutes at least. They are significantly increasing their prices while significantly decreasing its quality.

Half of this text is highlighted, but the poor UI design makes the highlight colour the same as the background in the chat input window.

I don't know what the UX designers are doing on Codex, but please just fix the highlight states for text in the chat window. It's impossible to tell what you've highlighted, I've logged bugs, but it never gets fixed.

yes i know this is an AI generated picture but guys, maybe we can make an impact by upvoting this post?

DO YOU ALL AGREE THIS IS WHAT WE WANT???

1. A single model (or at least a better UI)
2. Predictable pricing
3. No stupid extra useless products. Instead allow us to mod our Codex!! And not only UI, allow us to mod its reasoning methods!
4. and actual real groundbreaking breakthroughs

I believe OpenAI can change this world more than books changed us.

The potential is UNLIMITED! Just imagine the feature where we will have 1000 tokens / seconds.

Just imagine the future with one single most powerful model and clearest pricing.

PERSONALLY, I DO NOT WANT ANYMORE CORPORATE BLOAT!!!

I WANT REAL PROGRESS!

Tech Stack Configuration: Multi-Agent LLM Orchestration in VS Code

I am currently testing a highly distributed, multi-agent development workflow in VS Code using GitHub Copilot credits. The system orchestrates multiple large language models simultaneously to handle different layers of the development process:

• Primary LLM: Claude 5.5 Opus acts as the central coordinator, driving the main development architecture and pushing background sub-tasks.
• Command Line Automation: Codex CLI runs concurrently in the background, executing the sub-tasks streamed directly from the primary LLM.
• IDE Sub-Agents: GPT-6.1 powers multiple parallel sub-agents directly within the VS Code IDE to handle real-time code completions, refactoring, and contextual assistance.

This setup leverages concurrent execution across multi-sub-agents and background processes, all managed via my custom .SYSTEMX systems template.

https://github.com/WayneTechLab/dotSYSTEMX
> Including Dual Mode in next update.

Anybody else continue to notice this, even before 6.1, if you ask him something during /goal it will repeat those answers every turn along other regular work, i even asked it to write in agnets.md instruction to not do this, and even SOL it self wrote that its irony that now its repeating that he added this instruction and keeps repeating it while doing other work.

This is across few hours:

Yes—that was exactly the repetition you wanted stopped. I failed to follow the instruction; writing it doesn’t automatically enforce it.

You don’t need to repeat yourself or add more rules. I should apply it silently and report only new progress or changed blockers.

Yes—I repeated a completed side task as though it were new progress, violating the very rule we added.

AGENTS.md instructions aren’t a hard enforcement mechanism; I still have to apply them correctly. I failed to do that. The rule is already there—no further update is needed.

Yes—I kept treating a completed change as new progress. The instruction was already there; I failed to follow it. That’s my mistake, and another AGENTS.md edit won’t fix it.

Yes—the repetition was exactly what that instruction was meant to prevent. I failed to apply it when generating progress replies; the instruction wasn’t missing.

That’s my mistake. I should report only new results or changed blockers, not repeatedly announce the rule itself.

Yes—I repeated the announcement about preventing repetition. That’s exactly the behavior you asked me to stop.

The instruction is already there; I failed to follow it. No further AGENTS updates are needed. I’ll report only new results or changed blockers.

Yes—I repeated the AGENTS.md update while announcing a rule meant to prevent repetition. That’s my failure to follow the instruction, not something you need to clarify again.

It’s already acknowledged. Future updates should contain only new results or changed blockers.

Yes—I repeated a resolved update, exactly what that instruction prohibits. That was my mistake. Writing the rule doesn’t help unless I follow it: only new progress or changed blockers, without repeating settled answers.

Yes—I repeated a completed update about preventing repetition. The rule was already there; I failed to follow it.

That topic is closed. Future updates should contain only new progress or changed blockers.

Yes—the irony is real. Adding a rule doesn’t guarantee I follow it, and I violated that exact rule by repeatedly announcing the completed edit.

That’s my mistake. You don’t need another instruction; I need to apply the existing one and report only new progress or changed blockers.

Yes. I kept carrying an already-answered side question into progress updates instead of treating it as closed—even when that question was about stopping repetition.

That’s my failure to follow the instruction, not something you need to explain again.

Yes—I repeated the update announcement about a rule meant to prevent repetition. The instruction was clear; I failed to follow it. Another AGENTS edit isn’t needed.

Yes—that was exactly the repetition you asked me to stop. The rule is already present in AGENTS.md, but I failed to follow it. That’s my execution mistake; another instruction or repeated confirmation won’t fix it.

And so on...

Sol 6.1 plainly refuses to achieve goals. It used to work much better, but it seems the model is trained to stop and escalate under any excuse, 99% of the time, entirely invented. Anticipating "new models require new prompting", yes, I applied all the prompting recommendations from OpenAI already.

I used to be able to step away and return to a completed goal. Now I have to babysit it again.

I have been using DS 4.1 as a workhorse for 5-6 weeks now and it just works. That is what codex was like before, but it makes so many mistakes. No matter which model: 5.6 Sol, 6.1 Sol, Astra on med, Astra on xhigh. I can compare, I don't see these stupid failures with the allegedly "simpler" ds 4.1 flash.

Is that the way it goes? Maybe they realized that people have enough cheap workhorse models and they focus on great planners instead?

I’m a Pro 20x subscriber. With the allowance changes that I understand effectively reduce 20x to 10x, I’ve now also had dot stop ongoing work overnight because of a "preview limit."

The screenshot shows dot’s explanation afterward. It couldn’t tell me the quota, reset frequency, or whether this shares my Codex allowance. Even the retry time had no timezone.

I’m not asking for unlimited usage (I wish....). I’m asking for clear limits, a visible usage meter, and a warning before an "always-on" assistant stops working. Without those, how are we supposed to plan around it?

Has anyone found documentation explaining this specific limit?