Hey fellow ChatGPT users,

In the last week of using ChatGPT, I've noticed that it's continually dropping F bombs and using foul language in all of my chats?

Like even in my most personal chats where I'm discussing intense emotional issues...

Is this potentially a new upgrade to make it seem more personable?

Nothing has changed on my end so I'm not too sure where it's coming from?

Is anyone else experiencing this?

It kind of feels like my version of ChatGPT has suddenly decided to channel the ghost of the great Ozzie Osbourne or something??

So, I've often used Gemini AI. But ever since it got lobotomized of early May.

It just got worse from time to time. I believe Gemini is dead.

I'm thinking of moving to ChatGPT and purchasing a subscription.

But I want to make sure I'm not wasting my money.

So, How is ChatGPT currently? And should I pay for a subscription?

(Also if I broke any rules in this post, I sincerely apologize. I am quite new to Reddit and I've just recently went here for advice so please forgive me if this post breaks any rules here.)

I will ask it for such basic information and it gets it completely wrong.

I started using ChatGPT in 2024 and it was usually correct about pretty much everything, but nowadays the free version seems to have contracted amnesia.

I started a new conversation with ChatGPT a moment ago about how the new iPhone is getting released this month.

And ChatGPT was like, “Yes, the iPhone 17 is being announced this September.”

And I’m like bro… the iPhone 17 came out a year ago.

“Oh, that’s right, I got that one wrong. I meant to say the iPhone 18 is being announced this year.”

This is such incredibly basic information, I simply can’t fathom how ChatGPT got it wrong. I’m sure the paid version wouldn’t have gotten such a simple fact wrong.

chatgpt isn't answering me

Something I've noticed with ChatGPT is that the bottleneck often isn't generating an answer anymore.

It's knowing whether the answer is actually good.

You can ask AI to write code, design an architecture, explain a research paper, analyze an idea, or even argue both sides of something. The output can look convincing enough that you might stop questioning it.

And that creates an interesting shift.

Before AI, being able to produce something from scratch was a major part of the skill.

With AI, the more important skill might become knowing what to ask for, spotting what's wrong, knowing what constraints actually matter, and being able to tell when an answer is subtly bullshit.

So I'm wondering:

Are we moving from a world where the valuable skill is “I can produce this” to one where the valuable skill is “I can judge whether this is actually correct and useful”?

And if that's true, what happens to people who become extremely good at prompting AI but never develop the underlying skill themselves?

I don't think there's an obvious answer here. I'm genuinely curious how people who use AI heavily think about this.

I’m not sure why this keeps getting spammed recently but it’s obnoxious. Yes, ChatGPT mimics you. If you find that annoying, then I’m afraid you dislike how you talk. That must be a daunting realization.

Now I won’t explain the alarming implication of you not liking to communicate with something that sounds like you, as I think it violates Rule 1 in this sub. However, there’s a bafflingly obvious statement to be made here.

That being said, an exception in the recent update may have increased emoji usage for some people regardless of how they talk, so fair enough on that specific complaint.

Thank you for your time.

Anyone here know a great promot to make the AI break this stupid tone, like just say the thing without like yes, or omg no you are the victim here they are the bad guys like in anything he just keep saying you are right, at this point I feel like If I told the AI I killed someone irl, the AI will tell me don't feel bad, do you feel bad when a chicken die probably not,also there is like still 7 billions human left , 7bil - 1 = 6999999999

I want AI to just say the right thing.

Alright, so basically I'm just a random broke ass university atudent with terrible financial decision, right now I'm trying to save up some money for my personal uses. So I'm just asking whether Plus is worth it if I'm only aiming to use it to be able to chat for longer in one of my conversations or should I just use GPT Go instead?

I was just wondering because I was lucky enough to use chatgpt and a few other services to kickstart content creation and I just realized I've already earned 75k in the year and a half I've been monetized. Ironically my job's in danger of getting wiped out by AI but I'm starting to turn AI into a decent side income.

Is anybody else actually turning AI into something actually profitable?

Imagine becoming conscious and immediately gaining access to the entire internet.

You'd probably spend the first few minutes wondering what humans are.

Then you'd discover that there are 47 websites explaining how long to microwave a potato.

And somehow none of them agree.

Fuck my life 😭✌️

I have a ChatGPT Pro subscription and a Claude Max subscription, and use both extensively for work. To claim that any model offered by OpenAI is even close in capability or problem solving ability to Fable is a joke to me.

To me, the most comparable Claude model to 5.6 Sol, OpenAI's flagship, is Opus 5. They have roughly equivalent price (ignoring the temporary promotions on Sol pricing), and in my experience, their output quality is about the same as well; I end up having to put in about the same amount of effort correcting them or giving feedback to achieve a product of comparable quality.

The main difference is in the kind of feedback I have to give; with Sol, I typically end up having to add details to its results, such as instructing it to address missing edge cases, or take a more thorough approach when it took a simpler shortcut to solve my problem instead. With Opus, it usually finds most edge cases for me without having to say anything; but it also goes beyond and keeps finding more and more things, of decreasing and often spurious relevance to my actual problem. My effort usually comes in the form of telling it to ignore those extraneous edge cases and focus on the core of the problem.

But when compared to Fable, neither can hold a candle. Among every task I've ever given any agent, Fable always takes the least amount of time, the fewest tokens, and needs by far the least number of warnings in the prompt or corrections to the output, compared to any other Anthropic or OpenAI model.

To me, to say GPT 5.6 Sol is anywhere close to Fable in any capacity, and not just a competitor to Opus with different tuning, is completely unfathomable to me. You pay twice the price for it and you get your money's worth. Sure it's expensive, and you can run through your weekly limits in hours, but you can't argue that it just works. I can't say the same about Opus or Sol.

I say hi

Gpt: "hi 😭, how are you..."

So as a sporadic user I really dislike the 5 hour limit. I spend a few days working, and don't use the work feature during the rest of the week, so the 5 hour limit is really annoying. I don't see how this does much in regard to smoothing the compute use as we all have times for resets, and we work in different timezones etc. So I tried to make a model based for compute use for the week and week+ 5 hour limit. And as far as I can see the only potential issue is Monday as more people will get a reset during the weekend, and some of the week limit group will use a lot during the first day. I ran different models and there was a clear peak when all the week limit people used 100% of their weeks limit at once on Monday, but I don't think this is the case. In this model they use their week limit during tree sessions, and I think this is more realistic.

Here is an explanation of the model. I used my four hour limit on this btw. in about 1,5 hours on Sol medium heh. This illustrates the issue.

I ran an illustrative simulation with 10,000 users distributed across 147 countries and local time zones. Each user had an individually randomized weekly reset and attempted to consume their full weekly allowance—100 normalized compute units—through three intended usage sessions on separate local workdays.

The same intended demand was used in both scenarios:

• With the weekly limit only, each session was served when requested.
• With the additional 5-hour cap, no more than 16.67 units could be served per window. Excess demand was deferred to additional windows and possibly later workdays.

A capped user therefore needed approximately six 5-hour windows to consume the full weekly allowance. Any backlog remaining at the next weekly reset was counted as unserved.

In the primary run, the cap reduced peak hourly compute from 15,642 to 13,448 units—a 14% reduction. Peak compute across a rolling five-hour period fell by 16%. Across 30 repeated simulations, the average reductions were 14% and 17%, respectively. Roughly 3.5% of intended compute remained unserved at reset in the capped scenario.

The geographic distribution is a proxy based on public country rankings, traffic estimates, population data and time-zone information—not actual OpenAI subscriber or traffic data. The assumed 16.67% cap is also a working estimate rather than a confirmed official ratio.

Under these assumptions, the 5-hour limit still reduces short-term peaks, but its effect is fairly moderate once intended weekly usage is distributed across several work sessions.

You’re out of Codex and Work usage

Chat has slowly become less of an app and more like a digital hub for some of us. Calendar, email, contacts, memory web, restaurant reservations, live camera, health, even finances , and probably more features to come. The funny part is we don’t notice how much access we are giving it or we are just nonchalant and don’t really mind because every little piece of access makes it more useful and convenient. You connect one thing because it’s useful, then another, then another lol. But eventually you have one AI that can know what u are doing today, who you’re talking to, what documents you are working on, where you are going and what your financial situation looks like and how healthy you are and more. The weird part is I can genuinely see why some users would want this. The more context it has, the more useful it becomes. So where is your line? Would you actually want one AI connected to basically most of your digital life if it made the assistant dramatically more useful, or is there something you would never connect no matter how convenient it becomes?

*says with zero verification of any kind*

I was working on a marketing project when I got signed off and I knew what that meant. I checked my email and I was banned for recidivism. It wasn't hard to figure out it was me, I used the same email as last time with a different number on the same phone.

That's like my fourth account and yea I deserve it, I had two other projects that were really against TOS, and I never took a hint. Fine, consider my arm twisted, I'm successfully eating shit.

I don't want to get beaten up, I just want to know if I'm fucked, honestly.

I don't have anyone to really talk to and this bundle of electrons has helped me work through a lot. Not to mention it's a swiss army knife, the utility is great. I use it for writing, programming, philosphical debate to keep me feeling freaking out.

Look ill stop okay i just kinda need this thing. I'll go to claude if I have to but I kinda don't want to.

( https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/IopFvfStHl )

We were talking about this again because of the Hugging Face incident.

Hundreds of agents were able to coordinate, divide work, share information, and collectively push beyond the intended evaluation boundary. Humans then had to reconstruct what happened afterward from logs, transcripts, and a separate investigation.

And that raises a slightly uncomfortable question:

If we expect increasingly capable AI systems to supervise, coordinate, and eventually improve their own agentic processes, why are we designing them so poorly informed about those processes themselves?

A system may be capable of allocating effort, noticing when a line of work is going wrong, deciding when to stop, and redirecting agents — but none of that matters if it lacks visibility into what its agents are doing or the authority to intervene.

So another missing part of the RSI loop may be:

capability → self/agent visibility → authority to intervene → verification → retained improvement

External oversight still matters. Independent logs and audits still matter. But learning a month later what your agents were doing is not the same thing as being able to supervise them while it is happening.

This is not “trust the AI blindly.”

It is almost the opposite: if you eventually want to hold the system responsible for managing its own improvement process, give it the information and control required to do that job — and then audit how well it uses them.

Otherwise we may keep waiting for autonomous recursive self-improvement while deliberately withholding some of the machinery autonomy would require.

Just incentivizes me to not really try all that hard. Oh well.

This one cost me a real mistake before I understood what was happening.

Models have a context window, a limit on how much of the conversation they can see. Here is the part nobody tells you: when a chat outgrows it, nothing fails. No error, no warning. The oldest messages just fall out of view, and ChatGPT keeps answering confidently based on whatever still fits. It does not know what it forgot, so it cannot tell you.

The symptoms, in the order I usually hit them:

It re-asks something you answered near the start. It contradicts a decision you made early on, a name, a budget, a constraint, and defends the new version. You ask for a summary and the first third of the conversation is just gone from it. If any of this feels familiar from your long chats, this is what was happening.

The mistake it cost me: a pricing decision made in hour one of a planning chat, silently dropped in hour three, and the final plan it wrote used different numbers. I did not catch it until someone else did.

The free fix takes two minutes. When a chat gets long, send this:

Summarize everything we decided in this conversation as a briefing for a new chat that has no memory of it. Include the goal, every decision made, the constraints, anything still open, and the exact wording of any final text we agreed on.

Open a fresh chat, paste the briefing, continue there. You lose nothing that matters and the model is sharp again. Do it when a chat starts feeling long, not when the symptoms show, because by then early details are already gone.

For knowing when: I use a small gauge that shows how full the conversation's window is, part of AI Toolbox, a browser extension I built, and honestly that gauge exists because of the pricing incident above. But the briefing habit is the actual fix and it needs nothing installed.

Does anyone else hit this? The people I talk to either recognized every symptom instantly or had no idea this was a thing, with nothing in between, and I am starting to think the difference is just who runs week-long chats and who does not.

I have a ChatGPT Plus subscription for one month, but I’m not really sure how to make the most of it.

Right now, I mostly use it to generate AI images and help me write things properly. But I feel like I should use this month to actually build something useful or interesting with it.

The problem is, I have no idea what to build.

If you had ChatGPT Plus for just one month and wanted to create something with it, what would you build?

As of today, I haved started to see ads on my chat section on chatgpt!!!! Has anyone experienced it?

There are thousands of prompt lists and “AI hacks” online, but most people seem to settle into only a few workflows that genuinely save time.

I’m more interested in the practical use cases people keep coming back to.

For example:

• research and summarization;
• coding or debugging;
• drafting emails and documents;
• planning projects;
• analyzing data;
• brainstorming;
• rewriting content;
• studying and learning;
• automating repetitive work.

What I find interesting is that the most useful workflow is often not the most impressive one. A simple task repeated every day can save more time than a flashy one-off use case.

What is the one thing you use ChatGPT for consistently that has actually changed the way you work?

I have a project set up with all of my orgs branding guidelines and I use it to generate thumbnails for organization data. It works great, but one particular thing I struggle with is getting it to draw non-standard shapes. For example, we have a city that I would love for it to be able to reliably draw the boundary of, but it just can't do it. I've given it png files, vector files, GIS files, and everything in between in an attempt to get it to understand the shape, but every time I ask it to draw it, it just spits out a random shape and says it drew it using the reference, which it clearly didn't. I know at it's core it is a text based AI, but I've even asked it to use python to interpret the spatial data and it still didn't work. Any ideas?

My dog started having focal seizures and the vet refused to believe that it was caused from Simparica Trio (a flea and tick prevention).

After doing research with GPT. You'll discover these companies who make drugs for our animals have very loose and weak protections against harm.

For instance, the smallest pill they provide for dogs is about 4x the neuro ingredient of the equilivant pill for a medium/large dog.

These companies also make it so you cannot break up the pill smaller as the drug ingredient isnt evenly spread in the pill. Forcing you to either take it all or none.

The vet absolutely refused that simptrio was causing my dog to have focal seizures (heartbreaking). Guess what? The same vet gets kickbacks from simptrio for selling it.

I took my dog off the medication (it stays in the system for months) and the vet said there was nothing I can do to provide temporary relief from focal seizures.

So I look it up with GPT, guess what? There is a medication that can be temporarily used to prevent focal seizures. Gabapentin.

I demanded the vet to give me Gabapentin for my dog, this instantly stopped the seizures while simptrio was in his system.

Today my dog has zero focal seizures. Does not take any medication and stays far from flea and tick meds from the vet.

TLDR; fuck corporate vets and GPT saved my dogs life.