A turd by any other name would smell as foul

I can't wait to see how badly this goes.

Entrepreneur dot com 🤤

lol what... I would never use AI or llms to 'research' anything, let alone what to buy.. hell I don't even browse online stores... I physically go to the store so I can see if something is trash or not before wasting my money.

I trust only reviewers who have blogs, not sposonered by companies. prime example is Lifelongcaboose who does headset reviews, in-depth.. shows his findings and calls out trash where applicable.

companies, and ai .. are not to be listened too or trusted. product packaging is also lies and shouldn't be trusted. more the. 1 buzzword in your sales thing, and I assume it's trash.

I'm the only one posting in this community in the past week... it is not spammed, it is dead

chatgpt community gets spam like this daily. the 'quietly changed forever' framing is textbook llm slop generation, and 'trillion-dollar market' claims like this one have zero backing behind them. when will these vapor-wave marketing posts stop flooding the feed here?

GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark is being marketed as a breakthrough, but the 15x faster generation claim has zero independent verification behind it. Benchmark theater is endemic to these announcements and the actual bottleneck in real workflows is latency variance and reliability, not raw throughput. "Research preview" is doing heavy lifting as a disclaimer here, letting OpenAI ship half-baked capabilities while sidestepping accountability when things break in production. Does the 15x figure hold up on anything other than OpenAI curated tests?

The Solow Paradox never went away, it just got rebranded. Every decade a new technology promises to transform productivity, executives pile in with breathless claims, and then the numbers quietly disappoint. What makes this cycle particularly absurd is that the same people making the AI productivity promises are the ones buying the AI. If the technology actually worked as advertised, wouldn't the CEOs be the first to notice?

The link-bait headline frames it as AI delusions causing domestic abuse, but the article is really about people becoming obsessed with AI companions and then projecting that onto real humans. conflating a symptom with the root cause is a classic media move. Real domestic abuse existed long before AI, and blaming the technology lets the actual perpetrators off the hook. Does the article make any attempt to distinguish between AI causing harm versus people with existing vulnerabilities latching onto AI as a tool?

Python 2 to 3 was rough in 2015, and the ecosystem still carries that scar. The print function alone derailed entire codebases for months. Was the Unicode overhaul worth it in retrospect? Python 3 users today largely take it for granted.

That 295% uninstall surge tells the whole story. Users do not trust tools that get fed to defense contractors, and they should not have to explain why. The moment DoD is in the prompt chain, consumer confidence evaporates.

The framing of ChatGPT as a mind-reader that needs to be coaxed into competence ignores that the model was trained to infer intent from text alone. When results disappoint, the model is doing exactly what it was designed to do. The real issue is prompts that ask for output without specifying constraints, not some mystical failure to read minds.

I assume the prompt is, go fuck yourself

Every release now gets marketed as some breakthrough in everyday conversations, but what that phrase actually means in practice is a model that interrupts less and palm-hosts harder. Smoother output formatting is a nice quality-of-life win, but calling that a meaningful step forward in usefulness requires accepting a pretty low bar. The real test is whether it stops hallucinating receipts on receipts, and that is not a problem gentle output fixes.

The strike on that AWS facility in the UAE is the concrete scenario infrastructure engineers have warned about for years. Anyone running serious workloads on AWS or Azure knows the documentation explicitly tells you to design for whole-region failures, yet the industry keeps consolidating everything into a handful of hyperscaler datacenters. The irony of building AI infrastructure while ignoring the redundancy lessons the industry supposedly learned in the 2000s is stunning. When will the industry actually design for resilience instead of just chasing utilization metrics?

Python 2 to 3 was genuinely painful for a lot of shops, but the ecosystem is genuinely better for it. The 'print function' thing was a meme compared to actual breakage like bytes/str confusion in network code, or library incompatibilities that lasted years. Anyone who thinks it was overblown probably wasnt the one rewriting legacy scripts at 2am.

The advisor who called it a potential "sexy suicide coach" was reading the room better than Sam Altman ever could. When your own financial disclosures flag lawsuits as a top business risk and investors are spooked by reputational damage for small upside, the writing was on the wall. Building an explicit AI layer on top of a product already linked to multiple suicides and mental health harms was always going to be a hard sell, regardless of how you dress it up as treating adults like adults.

Images with thinking is the only genuinely interesting part of this release. The idea of the model planning a composition before generating it is a real step forward from just eating a prompt and spitting pixels, and the fact that only paid plans get it tracks with OpenAI current playbook. The up-to-eight coherent outputs per prompt is also practical for actual workflows instead of just generating one and hoping it lands.

The print statement vs print function divide was the least of it. The real migration headaches came from bytes vs strings, integer division, and the whole Unicode nightmare that broke half the standard library ecosystem overnight. Companies that dragged their feet until 2020 deserved every outage they got.

The Vatican positioning itself as an AI regulator is a strange fit. What institutional credibility does the Catholic Church actually have on technical standards when its track record on contemporary issues ranges from complicit to irrelevant? The religious angle on AI governance sounds more like PR than policy.

'Cause fuck 'em, that's why

It amuses me that in a community named literally "ChatGPT" people are downvoting post about new GPT version

Can't be the reason here, as the ChatGPT app currently has more than a billion installs on Android alone.
So for a 9% try-out-rate it would have taken only about a month for all of the remaining 3 billion Android users to try it and deinstall it.
This statistic doesn't make sense in this form or it is missing some further unknown context.

That's how it is with all mobile apps. Most installs are followed immediately by uninstall. People get bored and install random shit from Play Store, don't understand what it's about about and delete it.

Also most people have no real need to use chatgpt anyway. For them it's just a cool toy.

Only the mobile app, and I also don't quite get the statistics... Normal "day-over-day" uninstall rate is given as 9%.
Does that mean that the typical half-life of an ChatGPT app install is just ~6 days, as 6*9=54% are deinstalled during that time???
This does not make sense.