I have noticed the same thing starting with 5.6 when editing my last prompt inside the vscode codex plugin, I’ve seen the model’s thinking respond to the edit with a remark.

Slightly bummed out about it because in the past you could try different situations during a planning session and it wouldn’t pollute the cache but now it does. I’m not sure if forking the conversation has the same problem.

It’s really cool that we have this proof that US companies are half year behind Chinese models in architecture.

> It sounds to be like 5.5 and below may have been using a conventional attention scheme where a cached KV sequence can be easily used to restore a prefix of itself, but perhaps 5.6 is using linear attention or LSTM or another recurrent scheme where you cannot rewind the model state by just truncating it.

I feel like this is the kind of substantial change to your product that you would need to tell your customers about. It would be simply disrespectful to your customers to not disclose this upfront.

i dont know what the hell is going on lately i pop in to issues or discussions and its agents talking to each other or telling me what PR to merge

I mean i use AI too but was taken back when an agent popped up dictating what i should do and so on....felt weird

Precisely. I think everyone has been affected by the fearmongering and gaslighting to some dfgree. But step back and try and see whether software's getting better as a whole or going into reverse? OpenAI has basically unlimited internal compute and talent yet they screw this up amongst many other things. Shouldn't it be a 5 minute job for someone at AI to spin up a team of agents annd make sure this sort of thing never happens?

At a high level, most uses of AI I've seen seem to be people building other AI tools, orchestrators, managers, agent managers etc. But these are all means to ends. I mean I guess it's nice to play aroud with harnesses and command agents to do this and that, but where are the tangible outputs?

I just see so many people boasting of their token burn and the complexity of their agentic setup, yet they rarely show the actual outputs

> The fact that companies with access to SOTA non-public AI keep having these kinds of dumb bugs in something as simple as a chat app helps validate my disbelief of people claiming AI is ready to replace all software development.

Except leadership doesn't care about dumb bugs. Never has, never will (until it's too late). It cares about velocity and cost.

They'd totally replace all software development with worse AI software development in a heartbeat.

AI is ready to replace both jobs and companies.

The companies you see struggling are ripe for disruption.

If you’ve got a workaround, I’d suggest updating the issue description to have it up top there so similarly impacted users can spot it quickly and benefit.

"causing" -> "costing", right?

Way to bury the lede..

There haven't been any free resets in the past week, there were 4 in the first half of the month

Yeah regardless of comments by the team to the contrary (https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2090675027670978569) I have observed this in the cdoex app.

My conspiratorial mind thinks they're doing this deliberately and using the resets to mask things so people can't tell their limits are reduced. The $200 / month plan covers about 2 days of usage for me right now.

indeed it has anybody know whats going on at openai ??

Bug for user = feature for company

Bug ... Feature

Applying Occam’s razor, which do you think is more likely:

1. OpenAI intentionally adds random overcharges. 2. OpenAI deprioritizes fixing actual bugs that cause occasional overcharges because doing so won’t affect their bottom line.

This can be a reporting bias. Noone opens an issue when they were billed too low.

I doubt anyone announces when they have under billed. OpenAI has also done many low price deals and quota resets.