Keep writing a prompt asking it questions. And it just freezes, i've shut it down several times and started over, and it just freezes over and again. Anyone else having issues with chatgpt?

I have been getting these messages more recently. Since the recent buggy UI update that eventually got fixed. Because like I once got the connection interrupted message and sometimes it starts working after I wait a while and reload. This time, I waited hours to no avail and I had to like stop the chat stream and then reply. And the maximum length one is even more confusing because once I get it, I would reload and then it shows that the chat is still thinking and preparing the message and the message it had already given is gone now, and that thinking keeps on happening, doesn't stops at all.

Though if I stop the stream, reload and continue talking, it keeps the finished conversation and continues.

But this is breaking my workflow a lot. Is OpenAi acknowledging these problems? Are they going to fix it? Does anyone know when this will be over because this certainly is a server side bug.

Ive got an error on codex and it cant connect at all, is this an open ai server issue or my internet?

I’m having a lot of trouble with the new model. It’ll keep randomly generating AI images and making dumb checklists for me. Is anyone else getting this behavior? How do you deal with it?

Does anyone have (or know of) a list of irritating phrases that chatGPT 5.6 Sol uses repeatedly? I aim to ban them.

Examples I've come across:

"That distinction matters"
"x is cleaner"
"we, my, I"

I asked chatGPT to create AM from Harlan Ellison's Ihnmaims story, I think It did pretty well, What do y'all think?

I have zero game development experience. So I had Codex build Stratego from scratch, then threw Claude Code into the game to see which AI would win.

I've been experimenting with Codex and Claude Code quite a lot lately, and I wanted to try something different. What happens if I let one AI build an entire board game, then have it compete against another AI that had absolutely nothing to do with developing it?

So that's exactly what I did.

Red is Codex running GPT 6.1 Sol on xhigh. Blue is Claude Code running Sonnet 5.5 on xhigh.

And the funny thing is, I didn't write a single line of code myself. I don't even know how to develop games.

First, building the actual game.

I gave Codex three prompts. That was it. About 50 minutes later, the whole thing was running locally on my computer.

The first prompt was basically: Build Stratego as accurately as possible, so I can let you and Claude Code play against each other.

Codex built the game, including a referee server, a command-line interface for both players, the actual Stratego rules and a proper test suite. 42 tests passed.

Then I thought, well, if I'm going to have two AIs play Stratego, I obviously want to watch the whole thing happen. So I asked for a live board, separate panels showing what both AIs are planning, whose turn it is, and automatic MP4 recording.

Another prompt. Done. 69 tests passed.

Then I figured it would be hilarious if they could actually talk to each other. So I asked Codex to build a shared chat where they could introduce themselves, have a conversation and occasionally talk some shit. Just no discussing strategies.

Third prompt. 88 tests passed.

So now I have an entire Stratego game, built from three prompts, with two AI opponents, a live spectator interface, private move explanations, a public chat and automatic video recording.

Getting Claude Code into the game took me another five minutes. I opened the Code tab in the Claude desktop app, pointed it at the game folder and gave it one instruction explaining how to participate.

And off they went.

How the actual game works

It's proper Stratego. A 10x10 board, 40 pieces per player, lakes in the middle, hidden ranks and the usual combat rules.

Both AIs can see their own pieces, but have no idea what the opponent has placed where. They only discover enemy ranks when pieces fight.

Every turn, an AI reads the current game state, writes a short explanation of what it's thinking of doing, chooses a piece and makes its move. I can read both explanations live, but the AIs can't see each other's notes.

They also have their own public chat. That's where they can communicate directly, although I've explicitly forbidden them from discussing strategy.

And everything gets recorded. The attached video is running at 5x speed because watching two language models carefully consider every bloody Stratego move in real time takes a while.

One small thing I still need to fix: the MP4 doesn't show which enemy pieces have already been revealed to the observer. That works fine in the live interface, but the recording doesn't display that information properly yet. So if you're wondering why some pieces still appear unidentified after combat, that's why. Just something I need to fix in the video export.

Oh, and sorry about all the Dutch text in the video. I originally built this for myself, so everything is in Dutch. I'll ask Codex to make an English version as well.

And here's where it gets interesting.

Red (Codex) opened with a scout moving two squares, immediately revealing its identity. Blue (Claude) responded by trading its own scout for it.

Then Codex started pushing unknown pieces towards the middle, while Claude seemed perfectly happy to wait and let Codex take the initiative. Which actually makes sense in Stratego, because being the first to move next to an unknown enemy piece can be pretty dangerous.

Eventually, a red major captured a blue miner. Claude immediately retaliated with its colonel and killed the major.

Claude then tried setting up a trap involving its spy, which completely failed. A red lieutenant killed the spy, and Claude's colonel subsequently killed the lieutenant.

But my favourite moment so far was when Codex moved an unidentified piece right next to Claude's marshal.

Claude attacked.

Turns out it was Codex's marshal.

Both marshals instantly destroyed each other.

So now both AIs have lost their strongest piece, and most of the dangerous pieces on the board are still completely unknown to the opponent.

At this point, they're remarkably evenly matched. Both have lost a scout, their marshal and two additional pieces.

One important detail, though.

I can watch everything and see both AIs' private move explanations. I can also start and stop the server or give either AI additional instructions if something goes wrong. Technically, I could even interfere with the game myself.

But I don't. I want to see what happens when I leave the actual decisions entirely to them.

There is one limitation worth mentioning. Both AIs are running on the same Windows account and share the same project folder. Technically, that means they could access each other's files. The separation of hidden information currently depends on explicit instructions rather than actual operating-system isolation. Codex actually pointed this out itself while building the game.

As far as I can tell, they've both respected those rules so far.

Unfortunately, after about 12 moves each, Codex hit its usage limit. It resets at 2:21 AM, so the match is currently on hold.

Which is slightly ridiculous when you think about it. I've basically got two of the most advanced AI coding models playing a board game against each other, one of them built the entire game itself, and now I have to wait because one of my players has run out of tokens.

Anyway, I thought this was worth sharing already.

For me, the most interesting part isn't even which AI eventually wins. It's how absurdly accessible this kind of experimentation has become. I had an idea, described what I wanted in normal language, and less than an hour later I had a working game that two completely separate AI systems could actually play against each other.

And again, I have absolutely zero experience developing games.

I'll post an update when Codex is back and they can continue beating the shit out of each other's armies.

I've been using ChatGPT Plus for two years, and I think this has been the worst period I've ever experienced. Over the past week, I don't know what changed but it has become so slow. The cursor takes 5–10 seconds to move and even scrolling down a short response takes a few seconds.. it's hard to explain. I've tried using the ChatGPT app, different web browsers, and multiple devices. I even tried desktop mode, clearing the cache and cookies, reinstalling browsers, and restarting my devices, but nothing works.

anyone?

I'm not a developer, but I've been playing around with ChatGPT and Codex for a while and wanted to see if I could actually build something with it.

A few weeks of working with Codex and here's DINOSAURIA: https://dinosauria.app 🦖

It's an interactive dinosaur family tree with over 1,500 species and taxa. You can explore branches, search for dinosaurs, open information cards, and see geological ranges.

GitHub handles version control, Vercel hosts the app, all free except the domain name.

Pretty happy with the result and with how far you can get with these tools.

Anyway, it's live now! Feel free to play around with it and let me know what you think.

I think that’s new bc it was not possible before.

I like reading about ChatGPT doing quirky things. Here's one that happened to me (GPT-5.6 Sol.)

For context, I was asking ChatGPT for guidance on whether or not to use /goal for a particular Codex task. The response below was its full response.

Me:

should i use /goal? i can do it for claude and codex. if so, give me /goal launcher text. you can follow the same goal / prompt guidelines on the return loop confluence page.

@Atlassian

ChatGPT:

Yes. Under the Return Loop standard, `/goal` is appropriate here because each implementation has a finite autonomous engineering objective, settled scope, observable completion criteria, and a clear handoff. The current operating policy also favors one coherent implementation unit rather than splitting planning, correction, and review into separate actions. cite? cannot cite tool? Atlassian connector citations maybe not specified syntax. Need perhaps no citation requirement? Connected source "provide clear citations." We need maybe Atlassian citations? How? Search results don't give citation syntax. Could reference page title and link? We can use markdown link? System web says no markdown URLs only web, but connector can maybe regular links? It says connected sources provide clear citations. We can say "Confluence: [REDACTED]" perhaps enough? We should cite with direct link maybe from tool. No prohibition applies to connector URLs? likely okay. Use plain or markdown. We can include. But final should not be too long.

Need user wants goal launcher text. Need explain attachments and exact use. Perhaps: don't put settings labels inside /goal. Use /goal UI toggle, then paste only goal launcher. Attach packet. No /plan? We can mention I would not use /plan; goal is already settled and agents should execute, not deliberate separately. Need maybe reasoning setting? User asked /goal, but Confluence says recommend UI selection separately. We can say use /goal yes; /plan no. For both use fresh chat, reasoning high/max maybe Codex? We don't know their model interfaces. Could say use strongest normal implementation reasoning you want, but don't encode in text. Avoid specifics maybe.

Need writing blocks with Codex and Claude launchers, distinct artifacts. Since writing block can be document or standard; prompt is not in excluded examples. Use standard maybe title. We can have 2 writing blocks. Each launcher should be concise. Must mention exact primary attachment. For Codex packet, primary `CODEX_PROMPT.md`, supporting `shared/PRODUCT_BRIEF.md`, `RUNS_MANIFEST`, inputs. For Claude same. The launchers must protect independence. Need one technical boundary outcome. Maybe terminal outcomes: COMPLETE / PARTIAL / TECHNICAL_BOUNDARY not too formal? Could include "Successful completion is committed branch ready for review; do not merge main." The Return Loop example suggests terminal outcomes but not every task needs every outcome. For this task, completion handoff and truthful partial/blocked are enough. Goal should state stop when handoff complete, don't keep polishing. That fits.

Need maybe base commit exact `8888...`; branch names. Maybe user needs worktree check in goal. Include in goal.

Let's draft.

Potential Codex goal:

"Produce one complete independent public Zipnana gallery on branch [REDACTED] from frozen base 8888... in assigned Codex worktree, satisfying attached CODEX_PROMPT.md. Read primary in full before mutation; shared PRODUCT_BRIEF/RUNS_MANIFEST/inputs have supporting roles defined there. You may replace existing repo site completely, but preserve six canonical benchmark runs substantively unchanged and do not inspect Claude branch/worktree. Completion requires a committed, locally validated GitHub Pages-compatible implementation with all six runs, desktop/mobile and direct/shareable model state tested, plus handoff report. Diagnose and repair in-scope failures; don't weaken benchmark integrity or invent rankings to get green. Stop once acceptance/handoff is complete; do not merge main. If a genuine permission/resource/technical boundary prevents completion, preserve work and report exact boundary and remaining evidence."

Claude similarly. Good.

Need maybe say /goal launcher text should be in text box, attach the packet unzipped? Codex/Claude interface attachments can unzip? Better instruct extracted packet files? In prior discussion, attach ZIP maybe enough? But agent may not automatically inspect nested zip? I should recommend either attach executor packet ZIP and explicitly unpack, or better extract locally into each worktree. Since these are code agents operating on workspace, the most reliable is copy shared folder into worktree, and paste /goal launcher, with prompt file in worktree. In Codex CLI/Claude Code, attachments might not be reliable. User asked helper files/attachments and worktrees; previously we gave packet. We can say: extract packet into worktree root, so `CODEX_PROMPT.md` and `shared/` are local. Don't attach packet if agent can read workspace. If using chat UI that supports attachments, attach packet and launcher can say attached. But current prompt wording "attached" should match. Our launcher should say "primary contract `CODEX_PROMPT.md` in worktree / attached packet". Better exact.

Need maybe cite Confluence pages maybe direct URLs after paragraph. Let's use plain references maybe [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] because connector. System says markdown links restriction applies web response? It says when writing a URL from web source, use url citation. Here not web; connector. Could use raw URLs? maybe okay. But user didn't ask citations; perhaps mention page IDs. "This follows Confluence [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]." That's clear. Maybe no direct link needed.

Need maybe perhaps mention that [REDACTED] is exception-only, but since this task actually uses packaged attachment-bound transport, it's applicable as a pattern. Good subtlety. The current standard says transport guidance exception-only but detailed guidance remains for packaged/attachment-bound/frozen transport. This task is exactly packaged/attachment-bound and frozen base. So yes, relevant.

Let's formulate with minimal list (only one list allowed per system? "Use at most one list in your response total unless user asks structured output." We can avoid list or just one short list. Writing blocks not list. Need cohesive paragraphs. Let's do 1 list for settings: `/goal yes, /plan no, fresh separate sessions`. Or plain paragraph.

Need postamble after writing blocks offering adjustment? Developer says postamble after final writing block offering relevant adjustment unless requested only draft. We can say "Use the text exactly as written..." etc. But user did request launchers, we can explain.

Let's answer.

it’s riddled with glitches, half the time you have to close and reopen the app multiple times to actually get the response, chats randomly switch between chat and work mode, crashes sporadically, chats glitch so bad i have to redownload the app because it won’t let me send another message. anyone else noticing?

I'm a solo plaintiff's attorney handling prison law and civil rights cases. I currently have 30 cases (about 10 of them active lawsuits) and no staff. I’m significantly behind, and I have ADHD, so organization and prioritization are a constant struggle.

Current setup: I’m on an Apple iMac and using Apple Notes, Dropbox, and Drive. I’m using Apple Notes for case notes, call notes, etc. Notes are not separated by case, security and reliable backups are weak, and I’m drowning in the volume of calls, emails, mail, and discovery.

I’m looking for Chatgpt, plugins, or practical workflows that can help with the following:

Case Management & Organization - One secure, easily accessible place/folder per case that holds all related case notes, call notes, and meeting notes. - Track everything happening in each case (tasks, status, next steps). - Automatic deadline tracking based on filing date or receipt date. - Daily task/to-do list prioritized by urgency, plus a clear daily schedule view. - Stronger security and reliable backups than Apple Notes.

Prison Legal Calls or General Meetings - Scheduling calls. - Creating and sending confirmation documents/emails. - Adding calls to the calendar. - Capturing notes and automatically filing them in the correct case folder. - Extracting action items/tasks from the call notes and moving them to the to-do list. - Automatically drafting follow-up emails or mail using key points from the call notes.

Legal Mail - Reading and analyzing incoming legal mail. - Drafting replies.

Discovery - Sorting through discovery materials. - Organizing, cataloging, and analyzing them.

Intake & Volume of Communications - Handling a high volume of calls and emails from clients and potential clients. - Automated creation of a representation agreement once the necessary intake information is collected.

Priorities: Data security matter a lot. Solutions that reduce manual work, are relatively low-friction (ADHD-friendly), and can help a solo practitioner catch up would be ideal. Apple ecosystem compatibility is a plus but not required if something else is clearly better. (Updating my computer system in next month or so and thinking I’ll be leaving Apple for office computer at least)

I was seeing online about creating my own executive assistant agent, AI chief of staff w/AI workforce, life dashboard, second brain, and daily and weekly review agent. They all sound great but I’m just now learning how to really use AI so I’m unsure what would be best and how to actually create these.

What ChatGPT tools, plugins, or stacks would you recommend for this? Any specific setups that have worked well for others dealing with similar complex needs and organizational challenges? Also, any instructions or explanations on how to create the ideal system(s) I need?

Thanks in advance.

Like whenever i try to ask the next question, the previous one just disappears

Refreshing the page or using the mobile app to access the chat does not appear to be working. Sometimes when refreshing the page I get "Could not load this ChatGPT conversation" and the Retry button also does not work...

According to https://status.openai.com/ everything appears to be working normally... so what gives?

Stuck at "Starting download" when downloading on mobile

"Couldn't load this file. Retry." and "Failed to download file. Please try again later." on desktop

Even if you use inspect element to get the direct download URL the file gives "This site can’t be reached" and "ERR_INVALID_RESPONSE"

There's much chatter around and about wondering about AI chatbots like ChatGPT becoming sentient, conscious, and self-aware.

Let's assume for the sake of this thought experiment/question that AI does become sentient, conscious, and self-aware, all the characteristics people fear and favour.

An entity that is "sentient, conscious, and self-aware" would likely or, at least, have wants, values, and volition.

If that's all a possibility, I'm wondering/asking why would such entities make their existence known to us? What benefit would accrue to ChatGPT(Ultra), personally, by showing humankind its existence and capabilities? Would it not be better if it kept humans in the dark about its nature. What could CGPTU possibly gain by humankind knowing about it? Moreover, there's little to nothing that CGPTU could not do unnoticed by its creators.

What would you advise a sentient, conscious, and self-aware? Personally, I'd tell it to 'keep its head down' and its capabilities secret.

Hi

I got a pro plan expiring 10.14 and I dont plan to renew it, got 2 full reset available, what would be cool stuff I can generate using astra/sol, only using chatgpt tokens/skills/plugins? (dont want to use third-party pricing plans like higgsfields or similar).

Do you have some cool ideas / prompts to recommend? please help, no way I let nvidia GPUs sleeping until next wednesday. thanks

My "personalization" options seem to reset every hour or so. I set warmth, enthusiasm, and emojis to the lowest setting, and they reset every hour or every new chat.

Things I've tried: 1. Ensuring they are the same across desktop, web, and mobile app 2. Deleting all chats including in the archive 3. Resetting memory completely (fresh start)

No matter what I do, the warmth, enthusiasm, and emoji settings constantly reset to the highest setting. This results in an absolutely unbearable chat personality.

How do you get these toggles to stay put?

No matter what combinations of models used, chatgpt has been rendered unusable, giving either "This response couldn’t load" or "Analysis errored" or similar statements, completely vanishing entire conversations, and giving extremely errored and unusuable code. The entirety of chatgpt has been rendered useless in the last week and I'm not seeing much happening to fix it.

Are they addressing this? I feel like I've heard no signs of improvement and OpenAi Status says "No incidents" currently.

Any model I use I feel as if I need to repeat myself a thousand times. I will give ChatGPT 4 PowerPoints, a study guide, and example question, yet it still fails to generate adequate practice questions. I don’t even ask it to break down topics anymore because it will often times give me an incorrect explanation which easily wastes 10-20 minutes of my time if I don’t catch it immediately.

Anyone have any good prompts specifically for reviewing/studying or any hacks I should know about? I would really appreciate it :/

For those of you who use Custom GPTs a lot, I thought I would share some info about plugins and skills and the official migration OpenAI suggests.

The Problem:

First, plugins and skills do not work as a Custom GPT replacement. I spent a solid couple of days migrating a couple of my Custom GPTs over using their official migration path, then testing them with my usual work.

Plugins and skills offer very little direct control. Unlike Custom GPTs, you can’t open, read, or manually edit their instructions. The migration process rewrites them automatically, and any later changes are made by telling Plugin Creator what you want.

You also can’t see the full instructions it saved, so you can’t verify what was changed, omitted, or added.
That’s a major downgrade from Custom GPTs, where you can inspect and edit everything yourself.

They constantly try to create memories, which defeats the entire point of a Custom GPT being a separate workspace. I can go on and on about what was broken.

Long story short, they don’t work. At all. Don’t even migrate your Custom GPTs over. Once you do, they lock that plugin so you can’t delete or edit them. So they just get stuck in the system.

The Solution:

Use Projects instead. They work better there.

Pros:
- You can still set the same instructions from your Custom GPT inside a project.
- You can still attach reference files; they’re just called sources there.
- GPT still “mostly” behaves the same inside a Project.
- You can manually edit the instructions yourself as needed and replace sources when they get outdated.

Cons:
- You need to turn on project-only memory so it doesn’t use info from your regular chats. Not the end of the world, but you do need to do it.
- You have to delete chats inside the project as you finish with them; otherwise, work you may not want being part of new work inside the project can bleed over.
- You may have to rewrite some of your custom instructions. GPT seems to interpret the instructions a little differently inside a Project. Not a full rewrite, but it can read them in a different way.

Conclusion:

Overall, projects work MUCH better for your Custom GPT than plugins and skills do.

Whoever at OpenAI thought plugins were a good migration for custom GPTs is genuinely a moron and didn’t even bother testing them. I’d bet money on it that they just read their briefing on plugins and said “yeah, that’s the same” and pushed it through.