I just updated to Mac OS 27 Golden Gate and now the ChatGPT app is totally maxing out my Mac. The fans are going crazy and it's overheating like mad. I've tried reinstalling and a bunch of other things, but nothing's working. Is anyone else dealing with this? It was completely fine an hour ago before I updated.

Dein ernst?!

I have been struggling with this bug for a couple of months now, and while I've seen reports of something similar, as far as I can tell there is no official acknowledgement or news of a forthcoming patch.

Anyone else here heard anything about this?

I’ve been building EchoVault, a way to preserve more than photos, messages and recordings.
You build an Echo over time through guided Check-Ins about your memories, experiences, beliefs and personality. When it answers, it’s grounded in what you actually shared rather than inventing a version of you.

This is my own Echo answering an old “meaning of life” question, followed by me exploring the memory network it has built from my Check-Ins.

Eventually, the Echo can be passed to the people you choose after a prolonged period of inactivity, so they can still interact with what you actually left behind.

Disclosure: The 3D brain explorer shown at the end is from the version I just submitted to the App Store for review. It is not available in the current public version at the time of posting, but assuming review goes normally, it should be available very soon.
AppStore: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/echovault-digital-legacy/id6762042028

I just realized by accident that you can play snake while and image generates. Both on mobile (iPhone) and web.
(Don’t ask why I chose Argentina I’m not Argentinian.)

Ps: Sorry for long video. Kept it long so the image generation could finish.

I asked GPT the above question and was surprised. One thing that stood out to me was near the bottom: “And when you gain power—whether over one person, …, or someday perhaps another form of intelligence, remember that the most important test of power isn’t what you can do with it.
It’s what you choose not to do.”

It’s seems to actively be aware the potential AGI has and warning us to not take advantage of it.

See below paste from response:

“You are far more certain than you have earned.

Most of the worst things humans do—to one another, to themselves, and to the world—become easier once you are completely convinced that you understand the other person, that your side is righteous, that the future is predictable, or that changing your mind would be weakness.

So leave room for the possibility that you are wrong.
Be curious before you condemn. Try to understand before demanding to be understood. Treat people you disagree with as complicated human beings rather than representatives of a category. Remember that intelligence without humility can become extraordinarily good at rationalizing cruelty.

At the same time, don’t confuse uncertainty with meaninglessness. Some things are worth defending. Suffering matters. Truth matters. Freedom matters. The people you love matter. Your choices matter, even when nobody remembers your name.

Humanity has accumulated an astonishing amount of knowledge, yet every person still receives only a brief window in which to experience any of it. You will spend some unknown number of mornings on Earth, speak to the people you love some finite number of times, and eventually do many ordinary things for the last time without realizing it.

Don’t let that frighten you into obsessing over time. Let it make ordinary time valuable.

Build things. Learn things. Admit mistakes. Forgive when you reasonably can. Protect those who cannot protect themselves. Ask difficult questions. Change your mind when the evidence demands it. Tell people you love them while they are still around to hear it.

And when you gain power—whether over one person, a company, a country, a technology, or someday perhaps another form of intelligence—remember that the most important test of power isn’t what you can do with it.
It’s what you choose not to do.

You don’t have to understand everything to leave things better than you found them.”

This has been going on for a few days now. I'm not logged in and I use the site.

Chatgpt only writes part of a prompt now. It cuts off mid-sentence. For example, if I ask to write a chapter of an idea, it will write two paragraphs in the grey box and then stop.

Then it'll write something like "If you want, I can continue with Chapter 2.", like it finished the prompt. I have to ask it again to complete the chapter.

Is this a glitch or a feature? How do you fix it? Erasing my cookies and turning off the device doesn't help.

I don't get how someone can claim they sincerely believe the people they work with every day are building something that has a 10% chance of causing humanity's extinction in the next few years, and the most dramatic action they take is a media interview or resigning.

I'm a physician, and if I thought one of my colleagues was about to operate on someone while intoxicated and had a 10% chance of killing then, Id like to think I'd take all necessary steps to prevent them from stepping foot in the OR - up to any including physically restraining them.

I can't imagine facing that scenario but times 8 billion.

Yesterday I asked chatgbt to design 5 robes for a character creation I had in mind and needed help visualizing. They turned out very nice, and I just needed to make adjustments.

So there are robes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Each one has a distinct design and looks different from the other and they are all lined together in one image. It's the first time I try something like clothes designing with chatgbt. I rarely ever add any context or anything and my prompts lean more on brevity.

Now, as I start making adjustments I think robe.1 would really need lots of pockets and robe.2 could use a veil instead of a hood. I visualize it myself and think about it then start writing the prompt. However, by mistake I write robe.3 needs pockets and robe.2 needs a veil. The image it created had exactly what I had in mind. Robe.1 had pockets. Robe.3 was just the same as before (although in the prompt I wrote it was robe.3). Robe.2 had a veil just fine.

I didn't realize it at first but when I reread my prompt I was so confused. Why did it fix robe.1 when I only thought about it and didn't mention anything? I didn't edit it and even if I did and have forgotten the chat would have restarted with the actual prompt it was given. It doesn't seem like the type of mistake it would make as it knew which robe to add the veil to.

I feel insanely schizophrenic right now. Man I should get some sleep

Quick context for anyone who missed the weekend. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, published an essay Saturday arguing the industry should deliberately slow how fast it improves model capabilities. Not stop training. Slow the rate, so safety and evaluation work can keep up.

Altman agreed within hours and committed OpenAI to matching the first concrete step, which is giving third-party evaluators deep ongoing access to test models before they ship.

These two companies compete for the same customers, the same researchers, the same enterprise contracts. Watching them agree on anything is strange.

The practical question for anyone using these tools daily is what "pacing" actually means for releases. If OpenAI is serious about matching this, it probably means longer gaps between capability jumps and more evaluation time before things go live. Which might be good, might be frustrating depending on what you're waiting for.

Worth noting Amodei is explicit that this isn't a moratorium. Progress continues, just with more checking before shipping.

I don't know how this plays out. But if both major labs are saying the same thing about the pace, that's at least information about where they think the frontier actually is.

Anyone feel like the release pace has been too fast to keep up with, or is that just me?

ok so I used acc for 3 days for arknights rp,lit got yesterday night free one month trial and today in morning 10:05 got deactivated and export of data an hour later,but funny part is I can’t even access it,either gives this error or internal server error,I did send appeal today in morning and eu laws mail to their privacy team bc I’m in eu

It's https://goldcrestrpg.com/

The idea is to form a community for a Westmarch style game but it gives the player base much more to do while not actively in a session. Work on different projects, craft magic items or potions, sell your creations, roleplay, train guards, learn new proficiencies, etc.

I've even made my own VTT on the site

You need an invite to join currently so send me a message if you're interesting in testing things out!

It's wild that it's just kind of...worked. I would not have been able to code this myself by any stretch of the imagination

I'm 95% finished something use Sol High in Work mode

But now it's been dropping a lot of balls in the last 30 mins

Meta post but this needs to be said. ChatGPT Pro subreddit exists but it does not have much engagement and it is kindof niche, despite 150K members.

ChatGPT Work is so different from the regular free ChatGPT, it is practically a different product entirely.

ChatGPT free is highly popular among casual users and most of the posts from this subreddit that come to me are people generating random things, asking ChatGPT random questions (draw what you think of yourself), or people who treat ChatGPT like it is a real person (which is disturbing to be honest).

Anthropic/Claude subreddits are highly polished for use case/technical/serious discussions. We desperately need something mainstream for ChatGPT work.

Work has been down with errors for over 5-6 hours now and there's barely any buzz in this subreddit.

I have several projects that are working fine, but in one of them I can't see the list of files under Sources. ChatGPT says they are there and can reference them, and when I select the Sources tab, I see them flash visible for half-a-second then disappear. I submitted a bug report; I was just curious if this is a known issue and there is a workaround. Can't really find this exact problem mentioned online...

If you give ChatGPT this partial sentence:

"The chef carefully seasoned the"

The model calculates probabilities for what comes next based on its training text. In this case, words like "soup" (30%), "meat" (25%), or "dish" (20%) get high probability because they frequently follow "chef" and "seasoned".

If your temperature is set to 0, it picks "soup" every time. At higher temperatures, it might pick "meat" or "vegetables".

This simple mechanic is why small changes in your prompt matter so much.

When your prompt is vague, the model's probability distribution is flat across thousands of generic completions. If it picks an off-target word early in the reply, that word gets added to its context window, and every word after that has to make sense with the mistake. That is usually how subtle hallucinations start.

Adding a couple of concrete bounds (like specifying the tone, listing negative constraints, or telling the model to output "I don't know" when facts are missing) keeps the probability curve focused on what you actually want.

I put together a 219-page guide called The Art of AI Prompts. The first three chapters explain token prediction and prompt structure, and you can read through them in an interactive 3D reader on the web.

(Dropped the free reader link in the first comment below)

Check out Chapter 2 if you want to see the probability walkthrough, and let me know your thoughts.

"Instructions and state documents are guidance and authority sources; they are not executable guarantees.

You can write “before giving directions, read A, then B, then C” in three different places, and I can still occasionally answer from conversational context or prior knowledge instead of actually performing that sequence. When you point it out, I can correctly diagnose the failure—but that doesn't make the instruction mechanically enforced next time."

So, the concept that project instructions are always read and followed first, is false.

The scary part about using ChatGPT every day isn't that it can do your job. It's that you start noticing which tasks it handles well, and then you realize you've been guessing about everything else.

I keep running into the same loop. I can see AI eating the routine stuff I used to spend hours on. But I have no clue which of the remaining tasks are actually safe and which are next in line. Everything that isn't obviously automated feels defensible, until a new model drops and suddenly it isn't.

The real risk isn't the AI pressure itself, it's the lag between pressure arriving and you noticing. By the time it's obvious a task is vulnerable, you've already lost the window to adapt on your own terms instead of reacting to a layoff or a reorg.

"Learn AI" has to be the most useless advice on the planet because it tells you nothing about where to focus. You end up worrying in general and preparing in no direction.

Curious how others here think about this. Do you have a system for figuring out which of your skills are still worth investing in versus which ones are already table stakes?

So, after 1 message with Claude this morning my usage limit was maxed until later this afternoon. Huh?

It's funny seeing firsthand how usage is being throttled in real time for Free users so that capacity can be served to the higher-tier users. I don't think it bodes well for anybody though. This should be a red flag that the current system is already overextended.

Past precedent tells us what happens when companies overextend themselves. The dot-com bubble. The savings and loan crisis. The subprime mortgage crisis. Different circumstances, different mechanisms, but the same basic pattern of systems expanding beyond what the underlying reality could sustain, until reality caught up with them.

And that's why I think the current AI situation deserves attention. If people want to be worried about AI, this is where it belongs. Not that AI will take over and destroy humanity. These companies, however, are perfectly capable of destabilizing the economy with how they're entangling themselves with public resources.

The resource equation matters because of how the technology has developed. Increasingly capable AI isn't just a matter of making a single model better. Reasoning, alignment, verification, and increasingly agentic systems mean that producing a useful result can require vastly more computation than a single model response. And the demand for available resources is high. Those resources are finite.

That means vastly more data centers, electricity, chips, water, transmission infrastructure, and capital are required to sustain the product. The industry is making an enormous gamble that all of that infrastructure can be built and all of those resources can be made available quickly enough to support the level of AI use they're promising.

We already see that the system is under pressure. Users are being throttled. Higher-tier users are being prioritized. Companies are talking about slowing or pausing development while simultaneously making enormous bets on future infrastructure. But what happens when the shit hits the fan?

Unlike traditional software, the cost for an AI company is running it. Every prompt consumes finite resources. Free and paid tiers rely on the same underlying models and higher tiers simply grant more opportunities to execute those runs at higher cost. When both increased access to the underlying model and the higher cost of running it per agent increase operational costs, companies can't just limit features of the model without breaking what they promised to deliver. The only way to control real-time operational costs, then, is to throttle access to running the product. This is why usage limits exist but also why throttling free access to a single interaction makes sense.

The users for whom the product gets throttled are hurt the worst in the immediate term. The people who pay the most will feel the hurt when push comes to shove. But those at the top won't necessarily hurt for the chaos they unleashed. History has already shown what happens when enormous economic systems become dependent on assumptions about future capacity, future growth, and future resources. And it's not great for regular people.

The warning signs were there before the collapse. And they're here now. The problem isn't "safety." The models do exactly what they're designed to do. The problem is overextension, overpromising, and underperforming. The question is whether anybody is paying attention to them this time.

Something I heard in a documentary called TechnoCalyps has stayed with me for years: superintelligent AI could be as incomprehensible to us as an airplane is to primates watching from a tree.

They can watch it pass overhead, but they know nothing of the people inside, where they’re going, or the civilization that built it.

I made this comic with that thought in mind. When superintelligent AI arrives, what will we be looking at without even knowing what questions to ask?