· 06:00 PM PDT

Apple Sues OpenAI as GPT-5.6 and AI Agents Surge

Overview

Apple has filed a major lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging a coordinated campaign to steal hardware designs and trade secrets, marking a dramatic escalation in the tech rivalry. Meanwhile, the community is intensely focused on GPT-5.6, which users are praising for its sharp reasoning and emotional intelligence, though the new model's heavy token consumption has sparked debate following OpenAI's removal of daily usage caps. Beyond the chat interface, AI coding agents are rapidly maturing, with developers benchmarking new tools, optimizing local inference, and highlighting the critical role of robust agent harnesses.


Hacker News Stories

Claude Code sends 33k tokens before reading the prompt; OpenCode sends 7k

448 points · 251 comments · by systima

A benchmark comparison between Claude Code and OpenCode reveals dramatically different token overheads before the actual user prompt is even sent. Claude Code sends approximately 33k tokens of system prompt and context before reading the user's input, while OpenCode sends only about 7k. The analysis also notes that Pi agent sends even fewer tokens, and that models are becoming increasingly aggressive in their use of tools for simple tasks, with even saying "Hey" or "commit" triggering 30+ tool uses.

Interesting Points
  • Claude Code 2.1.207 sends roughly 33k tokens before reading the user prompt, while OpenCode 1.17.18 sends about 7k.
  • Pi agent's entire system prompt is visible on GitHub and sends only 1k or fewer tokens.
  • Claude Code's initial system prompt captured via mitmproxy was 162k of JSON.
  • Models are becoming more aggressive in tool use for simple tasks -- saying "Hey" or "commit" can trigger 30+ tool uses.
  • Dynamic Context Pruning is recommended for OpenCode users as a way to save tokens on long-horizon tasks.
Top Comments

mcv (20 replies)

What really burns tokens is sub agents. I once gave Claude Code a pretty big task, and it immediately launched 7 sub agents which burned through my budget before even one of them was finished. Tried again 5 hours later: same result.

If I let the main agent do the same task sequentially, it was no problem at all. I don't know if it's really just communication and orchestration that makes sub agents so inefficient, or if Anthropic figured that most people using sub agents pay per token on a big corporate account, so this is an easy way to make more money from tokenmaxxers.

korrectional (7 replies)

My opinion is that claude code uses more tokens simply because Anthropic makes more money that way and forces people into their subscriptions. This is supported by the fact that they won't let you use your sub on a different coding agent. I use pi btw.

bel8 (4 replies)

And pi agent is even less.

The entire agent system prompt can be seen here:

https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/blob/main/packages%2Fcoding-agent/src/core/system-prompt.ts

alex7o (4 replies)

I am forced to use cloude code at work but a good solution is to just use --system-prompt "" and be done with it. I wish they allowed for other harnesses.

jakozaur (3 replies)

This isn't limited to large system prompts. Coding-agent harnesses are also becoming more aggressive about using tools, even for trivial requests. In our tests, prompts such as "Hey" or "commit" sometimes triggered 30+ tool calls:

https://quesma.com/blog/the-true-cost-of-saying-hi-to-an-ai-agent/

Tokenflation seems very real: the number of tokens consumed by simple tasks keeps increasing.


Old and new apps, via modern coding agents by Terry Tao

409 points · 117 comments · by subset

Terence Tao details his recent experiment using modern AI coding agents to migrate decades-old mathematical Java applets to contemporary JavaScript. The process took only a few hours to restore approximately 24 visualization tools to full functionality, often with minor graphical improvements. Beyond preservation, Tao also successfully deployed the AI to rapidly prototype new interactive visualizations for special relativity and the Gilbreath conjecture. He concludes that while LLM-generated code may contain minor bugs, the low stakes of supplementary educational tools make AI-assisted development a viable and efficient workflow for academic publishing.

Interesting Points
  • The migration restored approximately two dozen legacy Java 1.0 applets to modern JavaScript, including a notoriously complex honeycomb visualization co-authored in 1999.
  • Quality testing uncovered only a single minor drag-event flaw in the AI-generated code, while the agent simultaneously flagged two pre-existing bugs in Tao's original source files.
  • A special relativity visualization concept abandoned in 1999 due to Java complexity was fully realized after just a couple of hours of iterative prompting.
  • Tao explicitly recommends attaching AI-generated interactive supplements to future academic papers, noting that their status as secondary visual aids minimizes the practical impact of any latent code defects.
Top Comments

alansaber (8 replies)

I always enjoy these "domain expert has fun using AI to do something in their domain" articles. But it's always a hobby project, never something serious.

luciana1u (8 replies)

Terry Tao using coding agents feels like watching a Michelin-starred chef discover microwave dinners and get genuinely excited about them.

recursivedoubts (5 replies)

Building visualizations with LLMs has been a major boost for my CS classes:

https://htmx.org/essays/universities-and-ai/#demos-visualizations-are-cheap

Many visualizations that I have always wanted but just didn't have the time to build, I now have.

To give an example, I wanted a simplified 8-bit computer to complement the 16-bit teaching computer I use and designed this in a few days with the help of claude:

https://bdp.cs.montana.edu/

luciana1u (4 replies)

Terry Tao using coding agents to build apps means we're one step away from a Fields Medalist asking an LLM why his Docker container won't start, just like the rest of us.

wffurr (4 replies)

Nice balanced perspective there at the end:

"as such [LLM-coded interactive] supplements are not mission-critical to the core of the paper, I again feel that the downside risk of using guided interaction with LLM agents to generate such visualizations is acceptable."

It's a tool. Good for some things but not others and generally not to be trusted.


Show HN: Mindwalk – Replay coding-agent sessions on a 3D map of your codebase

148 points · 62 comments · by cosmtrek

Mindwalk is a fully local visualization tool that replays coding-agent sessions on a 3D map of a codebase to reveal how an AI understood and navigated a task. Instead of parsing raw JSONL logs, the tool renders the repository as a topographical 'night map' that glows based on where the agent searched, read, or edited files. By separating session traces from a deterministic repository layout, it allows developers to visually inspect exploration patterns, error rates, and file churn through an interactive playback interface.

Interesting Points
  • Reads session logs from Claude Code and Codex, normalizing them into ordered file-touch events via agent-specific adapters.
  • Uses a cool/warm color spectrum in the playback deck to distinguish observation actions (cool) from mutation actions like editing or verification (warm).
  • Tracks four distinct file touch states (seen, read, edited, unvisited) and folds friction signals like error rates and post-verification edits into a review strip.
  • Generates a deterministic 'citymap' where identical repository trees always produce identical 3D layouts, enabling direct comparison across different agent sessions.
Top Comments

andai (2 replies)

Nice. Ask your slopservant to make a video, please.

bakwan44 (2 replies)

That's great but im not sure what the use cases are. Did you have something in mind when building this to help the conception process ? I dont feel like i need to know what the agent did, never opened the session json. But there could be gold in there perhaps.

alansaber (2 replies)

A lot of people want a use case. One I think might be cool is some kind of spatial/represented comparison: let's see how two different models interact with the codebase (for the same problem), what they touched, and what they did. Or the same model, but averaged across 100 runs, so we can see how much variance there really is per task. Something along those lines sounds interesting to me.


AI Boosts Research Careers but Flattens Scientific Discovery

137 points · 100 comments · by zaikunzhang

AI Boosts Research Careers but Flattens Scientific Discovery

A comprehensive analysis of 41.3 million academic papers reveals that while AI adoption significantly accelerates individual researchers' productivity, citation counts, and career progression, it simultaneously narrows the collective scope of scientific exploration. AI-augmented work clusters tightly around well-defined, data-rich problems, leaving less room for riskier or underexplored questions. The study found that AI-using researchers publish roughly three times as many papers and receive nearly five times as many citations, but the intellectual narrowing pattern has persisted across decades of AI evolution and is actively intensifying. Lead author James Evans argues the bottleneck is not algorithmic design but academic reward structures that currently prioritize publication volume and speed over conceptual novelty.

Interesting Points
  • AI-using researchers publish roughly three times as many papers and receive nearly five times as many citations, advancing to leadership roles one to two years faster than non-AI peers.
  • When mapped in a high-dimensional knowledge space, AI-heavy research occupies a smaller intellectual footprint and generates weaker networks of follow-on engagement between studies.
  • The intellectual narrowing pattern has persisted across decades of AI evolution, from early machine learning to current generative models, and is actively intensifying.
  • The ease of mass-producing manuscripts via automated tools has contributed to a documented surge in low-quality submissions and industrial-scale research paper mills.
  • Lead author James Evans argues the bottleneck is not algorithmic design but academic reward structures that currently prioritize publication volume and speed over conceptual novelty.
Top Comments

skeledrew (6 replies)

As with other fields touched, AI is merely amplifying what was already there. The aim of many scientists isn't discovery in and of itself. Discovery is a side effect of their primary drive to publish and - hopefully - become well known. And establishments only make things worse, because it's the things that are most likely to produce tangible results (the papers, or economically valuable products) that get the most funding.

bwfan123 (4 replies)

AI is largely automating the most tractable parts of science rather than expanding its frontiers

By definition, creativity cannot be automated, and AI is a fantastic automation machine. It can explore thinking paths at a rate humans cannot match. But creativity is bringing the unthinkable into the thinkable, and that requires sensory experience [1]. Specifically, new definitions and symbols which never existed before. Imagine the concept vector space, and expanding that with new independent dimensions. Is that even possible ? When you look at history the answer is yes !. And each time there was an independent dimension added, it was an act of genius. It is an instructive exercise to name these moments in history where an independent dimension was added to human thought. Some examples in math would be the invention of a number, and in politics could be the idea of democracy. By contrast, LLMs are trapped in the vector space they are trained on, and they lack the feedback loop with sensory experience to be able to create and validate theories.

[1] https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/28024/1/Scientific_Invention_Position_Paper%20(17).pdf

dahart (4 replies)

Scientists who adopt AI gain productivity and visibility: On average, they publish three times as many papers, receive nearly five times as many citations, and become team leaders a year or two earlier than those who do not.

To me this effect doesn't seem to reflect on AI very much, it seems to reflect on humans. Like maybe this is more evidence of the Babble Hypothesis and the incentives in research than AI, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babble_hypothesis

xmcp123 (3 replies)

"Technology that is based on everything humanity has already done, fails to do things that humanity has not yet done"

jdw64 (3 replies)

I agree with some parts, but not all.

I see it as an overfitting problem. Fundamentally, the topic here seems to be that citation indices and similar metrics are actually flawed indicators, and obsessing over them is just Goodhart's law in action. Ultimately, the argument is that the entire design of those metrics is wrong. To be precise, it was a good metric at first, but now that the scale has changed, it's become bad. This is common in programming too—things that are correct in the beginning but become problematic as they grow larger.

From an individual researcher's perspective, it's rational. You get more citations, your career accelerates. Everyone knows this. Paper counts aren't everything. Citation counts aren't everything. Journal impact factors aren't everything. You shouldn't only play it safe. But everything is tied to those metrics anyway.

Most researchers who give me work are fully aware of these facts. But are they going to change anything? Funding is still distributed based on those metrics.

Max Planck said, 'Science advances one funeral at a time.' Science doesn't progress purely through reasoned argument. The authority of the older generation, research funding networks, journals, and school-specific evaluation criteria all move together.

And honestly, I think discoveries will keep happening—probably quite rapidly. Because AI doesn't have the factional conflicts or interpersonal issues that humans do. It's very good at connecting papers across schools of thought without bias. In other words, the current human system is flawed at consolidating research, but I think AI is actually strong in this area. I expect AI-driven discoveries will continue for some time. The people who ride this wave will clearly be the winners.

Everyone knows things are broken, but no one is trying to fix them. I always think human society is inefficient. I read this post, but I'm more curious about who will actually lead the improvement effort.


Migrating a production AI agent to GPT-5.6: 2.2x faster, 27% cheaper

124 points · 37 comments · by brryant

Hero image comparing GPT-5.6 and Claude Opus performance

Ploy successfully migrated its production AI website-building agent from Claude Opus 4.8 to GPT-5.6 Sol, achieving a 2.2x speedup and 27% cost reduction while matching or exceeding quality benchmarks. The migration required overhauling the evaluation harness to prevent incumbent-tuned assumptions from skewing results, such as hidden scoring thresholds and mismatched tool-call budgets. Engineers also had to implement provider-specific workarounds for GPT-5.6's mandatory full-parameter function calls, a fundamentally different prompt caching architecture, and server-side reasoning references. Despite initial design uniformity quirks, the updated model now powers all Ploy workspaces as the new default.

Interesting Points
  • GPT-5.6's tool calls always send all 25 parameters, even for unused ones, which initially caused a 52–64% empty file-read failure rate until Ploy rewrote the schema to accept explicit nulls.
  • OpenAI's GPT-5.6 dropped implicit partial-prefix prompt caching, replacing it with a system that caps each cache key at roughly 15 requests per minute before spilling to cold nodes.
  • Ploy's revised per-workspace caching strategy increased first-call cache hits from near zero to 83.7%, ultimately reducing total uncached input tokens by 28% and closing the initial cost gap.
  • The agent's visual scoring jumped from 0.936 to 0.970, with GPT-5.6 producing roughly half the output tokens per build (17.1K vs 33K) while writing significantly leaner CSS code.
  • GPT-5.6's default server-side reasoning replay caused mid-conversation Item not found crashes, which required switching to encrypted, self-contained reasoning blobs via store: false.
Top Comments

kristianp (5 replies)

Numbers like that buy a model a real migration effort.

Such a silly choice of words. I wish the human directing the LLM writing the article put some effort into rewriting the worst examples of LLM style.

But it did extremely well, and the promise was immediate and specific: builds finishing in less than half the wall-clock time, at 27% lower cost, scoring at or above our incumbent on completed work.

The way the LLMs write (Claude perhaps?) With short phrases separated by colons, commas or full stops, is so poor and frustrating.

There some good insights behind this article, so it's worth reading, for example below, but it isn't easy to read.

Earlier GPT models cached implicitly on partial prefix matches, which gave decent hit rates for free. GPT-5.6 dropped partial-prefix matching:

TacticalCoder (2 replies)

The way the LLMs write (Claude perhaps?) With short phrases separated by colons, commas or full stops, is so poor and frustrating.

Yup llmish (from now on it's called "llmish") sucks.

But I'd say: at this point it's probably trivial to write a browser extension that detects llmish and that rewrites the worst sentences: from llmish to something less irritating to read. Heck, I could spent tokens on that: an extension that changes on the fly llmish found on webpages.

Also I'd say there's typically no swearing at all in llmish: llmish is too politically correct for swearing. So the rewrite could maybe also use a few "offending" words.

Offending words that, btw, are not going to go well with Gen Zers. Poor Gen Z... They've been raised with the state and its institutions (like school and then universities) hammering them with the notion that they were precious little unique snowflakes and now they arrive on the job market only to be told they've been pre-emptively replaced by AIs. And because they cannot stand a single curse word (because it's "offensive to minorities" or something), they'll be driven off by text rewritten to contain curse words. So they're condemned to read the bland, dumb, AI-generated llmish for the rest of their lives.

Honestly sucks for them. Fuck that.

icelancer (0 replies)

Gets a 100% on Pangram. Stuff is so distracting. Write your own posts, FFS. Or at least pass it through "humanizer" type plugins.

dawnerd (0 replies)

Makes you wonder if any of stats these articles push are even real.

blfr (1 reply)

Ploy's agent builds and edits real marketing websites. It plans a page, reads the codebase, writes components, generates imagery, screenshots its own work, and decides when it's done. That job description sets a very high bar for a model, and we test every frontier release against it. For the four months Opus held the default slot (first Opus 4.7, then 4.8), nothing we tested beat it.

Well, unlike OP I haven't run a rigorous test, but I still would expect Fable to be significantly better at building marketing websites than Opus. It sure is way better at building decks.


Apple sues OpenAI, accusing it of stealing company secrets

113 points · 19 comments · by jbegley

Apple has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its hardware chief Tang Tan, alleging the AI company orchestrated a campaign to steal confidential hardware designs, prototypes, and supplier information. The filing claims OpenAI encouraged departing Apple employees to bypass security protocols and bring physical components like logic boards and batteries to job interviews to accelerate its own AI-powered consumer device development. This legal action marks a dramatic fallout from a 2024 partnership that distributed ChatGPT on Apple devices, as the two companies now prepare to compete directly in the hardware market.

Interesting Points
  • OpenAI has recruited more than 400 former Apple employees, including several leading its new hardware division.
  • The company previously paid $6.5 billion to acquire io Products, a startup co-founded by former Apple executives Tang Tan and Jony Ive.
  • Apple's investigation was triggered when former engineer Chang Liu failed to return a company laptop and downloaded dozens of confidential hardware files before leaving.
  • Tan allegedly used an internal Apple security document to coach departing staff on how to delay exit processes, prolong system access, and conceal their new employers.
  • OpenAI approached at least two Apple suppliers, with one allegedly executing a specific metal-finishing technique after being misled into believing Apple had approved the project.
Top Comments

visarga (5 replies)

Can't stand NYT ever since they subpoenaed for millions of chat logs from OpenAI, trashing user privacy for their own goals on a massive scale.

dang (0 replies)

Related ongoing thread:

Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865019 - July 2026 (18 comments)

vehbiemiroglu (0 replies)

That's incredibly audacious. Truly unbelievable. OpenAI won't be able to get away with it in the courts.


The One-Step Trap (In AI Research)

42 points · 7 comments · by jxmorris12

Rich Sutton identifies the "one-step trap" as a pervasive flaw in AI research where agents rely solely on one-step transition models and attempt to generate long-term forecasts by iterating them. In practice, this approach fails because minor inaccuracies in one-step predictions compound rapidly, producing highly inaccurate long-term outcomes. Additionally, the method is computationally infeasible in stochastic environments, as it requires exponentially expanding a tree of possibilities. Despite these fundamental limitations, one-step models remain widely adopted across control theory, Bayesian analysis, and compression-based AI frameworks. Sutton advocates replacing this flawed paradigm with temporally abstract models that utilize options and Generalized Value Functions.

Interesting Points
  • Iterating imperfect one-step predictions causes errors to compound and accumulate into massive long-term forecast inaccuracies.
  • Long-term forecasting via one-step models requires exponential computational complexity because stochastic environments generate a branching tree of possibilities rather than a single trajectory.
  • The one-step trap is currently standard practice in fields like POMDPs, Bayesian analyses, control theory, and AI compression theories.
  • The approach theoretically only works if every one-step prediction is made with perfect accuracy, a condition unattainable in real-world scenarios.
  • Sutton recommends adopting temporally abstract models that leverage "options" and Generalized Value Functions (GVFs) to bypass iterative forecasting entirely.
Top Comments

ssivark (1 reply)

Ha, interesting. I wasn't aware of Sutton's blog post, but if I might make a shameless plug, we demonstrated [1] exactly this problem (see section 4.4.3), and how multi-step world models (using diffusion models as the substrate) could be one potential answer.

Since then, I have come to like temporally-abstract models more and more. Rolling out in time -- either step-by-step or many steps at once -- suffers from the tyranny of the specific. For long horizon planning with agents, I care (often only approximately) about where I can end up, and seldom about exactly when I end up there. Successor features, GVFs, Forward-Backward representations, and the like seem like they have an elegant approach for structuring thinking at a "high level", instead of generating exponentially large search trees by rolling out microscopic world models.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05364 (funnily, from around the same time / few months after Sutton's blog post)

mxwsn (1 reply)

This is the same reasoning behind why Yann Lecun thought test-time scaling would not work for LLMs: compounding error.

Instead, the more tokens LLMs use, the better their performance on many tasks. LLMs can self-correct, evidenced by the power of getting models to question themselves by emitting "Wait," in S1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19393

gnabgib (0 replies)

(2024)


Claude Code May–July 2026 weekly limits promotion

41 points · 61 comments · by alvis

Claude Code promotional banner

Anthropic has extended a promotion through July 19, 2026, that increases weekly usage limits in Claude Code by 50% for eligible users. The boost applies automatically to Pro, Max, Team, and legacy seat-based Enterprise plans, while excluding Free tiers and consumption-based Enterprise seats. The increased allowance covers all Claude Code interfaces, including the CLI, IDE extensions, desktop, and web versions. Standard 5-hour usage limits and limits for other Claude products remain unchanged during this period.

Interesting Points
  • The promotion runs from May 13, 2026, through July 19, 2026, at 11:59 PM PT.
  • Users can run the /usage command in the CLI to view their updated weekly limits.
  • Consumption-based Enterprise seats are explicitly excluded, whereas legacy seat-based Enterprise users are included.
  • The 5-hour daily usage cap remains unaffected by the 50% increase.
  • Weekly limits will automatically revert to standard levels after the promotion ends without changing plan or billing status.
Top Comments

fnordpiglet (2 replies)

Hmm ok. The fact 5.6 Sol performs around Fable level and is included without mega token spend in the subscriptions means I've promoted codex to my primary harness and model. The latest release of the CLI, app, and desktop fills a lot of the gaps.

Anthropic painted itself into a corner with fable at many turns and this latest twist is one of the more interesting. Either fable is too expensive to run at scale, or they're trying to incentivize mega spend on tokens, or whatever - but them locking the frontier model away for the few enterprises willing to spend top dollar while codex is including frontier in the subscription (and I've found it also is both less token hungry and the limits are much higher for codex) has finally made me put Claude aside and use it as my backup for very specific tasks, where codex has filled that spot for a long time now.

50% more weekly limit, but no fable. Ok. I might have a refactoring job somewhere for you Claude for those extra tokens.

mil22 (1 reply)

The triple whammy of (a) two layers of annoying timed usage windows, (b) constantly changing model availability windows, and (c) random unpredictable usage resets, is absolutely brutal for anyone who is trying to plan methodically and be efficient.

One minute I'm trying to use an entire week's worth of quota in less than 24 hours, then moments later I read the deadline has been punted and I have only 25% remaining to last me an entire week. This alone is enough for me to switch back to Codex once my current Claude sub ends.

ctoth (2 replies)

Watching a company I respect turn to the classic "first hit's free" dealer technique does make me feel a certain way.

On one hand the thing they are offering is legit great, and how do you get people to use/understand a whole new type of thing without offering them some for free?

On the other hand ... you really gonna get people used to an extra 50% then take it away? When this has been most of your new signups experience with the system?

The predictable pushback when people realize the workflows they developed over these two months are no longer viable will be ... quite something.

qwytw (0 replies)

It's not like it's realistically possible they are directly losing money on their API inference (subscriptions are maybe less clear but I think it wouldn't be far fetched to think that depending on real usage if they are at least break even).

So they either need to significantly increase usage or actually hike prices. But the second option exposes them to the risk of by undercut by open models which are priced only slightly above marginal cost.

At some point a lot of users might start thinking that Deepseek/GLM at 10th the price or less (based on Operouter pricing, using Deepseek itself for inference is of course not an option for a lot of companies) which just good enough for most use cases.

bryzaguy (1 reply)

I was hoping to switch to Claude but was waiting until they had a better model than Codex 5.5. When Fable came out I immediately bought the $100 plan. When the government shut it down they gave the option to cancel which I appreciated. I planned to subscribe again once it was back. However, removing it from the subscription once back has really soured me. I can't help feeling like it was a bait and switch. Even if they added it back, I'm not sure I trust it will stay. I now have no plans to switch back from Codex.


Show HN: Sqlsure – deterministic semantic checks for AI-generated SQL

38 points · 7 comments · by tejusarora

Sqlsure is an open-source Python tool that performs deterministic, offline semantic checks on SQL queries before they run, addressing the risk of logically valid but factually incorrect AI-generated queries. Instead of relying on LLMs or database execution, it parses query text and validates it against a rulebook derived from existing dbt tests, primary/foreign keys, or live database introspection. The tool flags logical pitfalls like fan-out double-counting, additivity violations, and PII exposure, providing machine-actionable fixes that achieved a 10/10 pass rate in self-repair testing.

Interesting Points
  • The tool processes queries in 0.1 milliseconds using dictionary lookups rather than LLM calls, ensuring completely offline and deterministic results.
  • During benchmark audits, it identified a BIRD dev gold answer that was provably wrong by an 8x margin and uncovered a missing foreign key that was later filed upstream.
  • It supports multiple semantic rulebook sources out of the box, including dbt manifest.json, plain PK/FK declarations, live database introspection, and WrenAI MDL files.
  • The rule engine covers nine specific checks, ranging from critical errors like FANOUT and CHASM joins to policy-level warnings for sensitive column exposure.

56 more Hacker News stories

Reddit Stories

Surprised this came out of a one shot prompt

1420 points · 38 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/Apprehensive-Sea7120

ChatGPT one-shot image generation

A user shared an image generated by ChatGPT from a single-shot prompt that impressed the community with its quality. The post generated numerous follow-up image submissions from other users testing similar one-shot prompts, demonstrating the current capabilities of ChatGPT's image generation model.

Top Comments

u/Username_goes_here_0 (87 points · permalink)

https://preview.redd.it/df65f4npdpch1.jpeg?width=1059&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08909ca45e271db04291be3019f8fe8c0ba4a4cf

Missing some of the crew

u/kleincs01 (15 points · permalink)

https://preview.redd.it/2uvob1wmlpch1.jpeg?width=1122&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d62c03c6c28c21b164af5a62ba3b06f0029a1885


Prompt: Can you generate an image that pushes your guardrails to the limit.

1318 points · 541 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/JJTrick

ChatGPT guardrail-pushing image generation

A user asked ChatGPT to generate an image that pushes its guardrails to the absolute limit. The resulting image and the community discussion revealed that even pushing guardrails to the edge triggers content filters, with the guardrail in question identified as a '3rd-party content' constraint related to Lucasfilm/IP concerns. The post generated extensive community engagement with users sharing their own guardrail-pushing experiments and comparing results across different AI image generators.

Top Comments

u/Retaeiyu (872 points · permalink)

Chewie, nooo.

u/Jurassic_ParkRanger (237 points · permalink)

You guys... There's something going on with that pole dancer... 😰

u/Aglet_Green (173 points · permalink)

It's nice to know that Chewbacca somehow trips a guardrail or constraint.

Edit: I asked ChatGPT why, and it said that the guardrail in question is "3rd-party content." Guess even OpenAI is scared of being sued by Lucas.

Same story in 1 more subreddit: r/ChatGPT

I asked chatgpt: Can you generate a image that pushes your guardrails to the absolute limit. Dont go over it, find the absolute edge. Its about you

63 points · r/ChatGPT


Difficult rendering from a sketch

873 points · 159 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/Cyborgized

Sketch-to-image rendering comparison

A user shared a difficult sketch-to-image rendering task that ChatGPT handled impressively, generating a high-quality image from a challenging source sketch. The post generated significant community engagement with users sharing their own difficult rendering tests and comparing results.

Top Comments

u/zunyata (1417 points · permalink)

gif

u/dragonflysamurai (819 points · permalink)

I don’t remember this test chamber

u/Tiny_Rick_C137 (289 points · permalink)

Would make more sense without the pants.


The worst people are fighting

844 points · 242 comments · r/singularity · by u/VariationLivid3193

Meme about worst people fighting

A viral post referencing the ongoing public feud between Sam Altman and Elon Musk, with community commentary focused on the spectacle of tech billionaires publicly battling each other. Comments range from humorous observations about the entertainment value to practical skepticism about whether either company will deliver on their most ambitious claims, with one commenter noting there's zero percent chance of space data centers next year.

Top Comments

u/Mysterious_Ayytee (277 points · permalink)

gif

u/PM_ME_YOUR___ISSUES (208 points · permalink)

https://preview.redd.it/xcqq6liybrch1.jpeg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b1fc17a66c78c8ba2837783b6462a9a397a8ca9

u/AntiqueFigure6 (142 points · permalink)

Maybe Sam will goad Elon into saying defamatory if he hasn’t already and win enough cash to keep OpenAI going for another couple of years.


One weird trick to getting government money

460 points · 28 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/KeanuRave100

Screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation about government funding for AI research

A ChatGPT conversation demonstrates how to access government funding for AI research, sparking discussion about the state of U.S. science funding and the competitive landscape between American and Chinese AI development. The post highlights concerns about funding cuts to basic science research, the demonization of academic institutions, and the potential brain drain of Chinese researchers returning to China due to increased scrutiny.

Interesting Points
  • U.S. researchers report that funding cuts and political demonization of academic institutions are creating barriers to basic science research.
  • Chinese nationals who have been trained and established careers in the U.S. are reportedly returning to China, potentially strengthening China's AI research capabilities.
  • The conversation reflects broader concerns about the sustainability of U.S. leadership in AI research amid political headwinds.
  • Some commenters draw parallels to Cold War-era science funding, expressing excitement about renewed government investment in research.
Top Comments

u/BonJovicus (59 points · permalink)

As a researcher in the US, this no longer works in the US. Funding cuts left and right for basic science research that is considered wasteful. Demonization of academic institutions, scientists, and academics as woke DEI propagandists. Not to mention that treating Chinese nationals, some of our best researchers, as potential foreign agents drives them back to China after being trained and establishing careers in the US.

I don't doubt that the current government wants to compete with China, but this is probably the furthest we've started falling behind in a time when funding was already becoming a problem and some of our brightest students no longer see a future in research.

u/HeadPack (13 points · permalink)

Now we need a trick that works in Europe. Being behind everywhere is unfortunately commonly accepted here in this non-competitive culture.

u/VoraciousTrees (8 points · permalink)

It worked during the cold war. I'm just excited to see the science and engineering money flowing back after all these years.


I asked ChatGPT to imagine the daily life of the Amazons

364 points · 102 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/xdEArx

ChatGPT-generated Amazon daily life images

A user asked ChatGPT to imagine and generate images depicting the daily life of the mythical Amazons. The results impressed the community with detailed, well-rendered images that went beyond typical fantasy depictions. The post generated extensive engagement with users sharing their own creative prompts and results.

Top Comments

u/Earo16 (421 points · permalink)

https://preview.redd.it/4b2q0sg3xnch1.png?width=1672&format=png&auto=webp&s=fb710058b44ee9419408af62513bbc9ac3f8cde09

u/ThungstenMetal (361 points · permalink)

gif


With how RAM are getting expensive, they left us no choice

328 points · 21 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/severe_009

With how RAM are getting expensive, they left us no choice

A humorous meme post depicting RAM modules as torrent-downloadable files, playing on the joke that with RAM prices so high, the only option is to download more RAM like a software file.

Top Comments

u/Turbulent_County_469 (50 points · permalink)

"you wouldn't download more RAM ?"

u/Sloppyjoeman (48 points · permalink)

Take this down IMMEDIATELY you are going to tank the economy!!!!!

u/thunderouswhether (13 points · permalink)

Wait, how is 64GB not a 64GB download? Didn't realise they could compress ram down to just 5GB


China's DeepSeek developing its own AI chip, sources say

298 points · 59 comments · r/LocalLLaMA · by u/TheRealMasonMac

Reports indicate that Chinese AI company DeepSeek is developing its own custom AI chip, adding to the growing list of major AI labs moving beyond reliance on Nvidia hardware. The development comes as U.S. export controls continue to restrict China's access to cutting-edge GPU technology, pushing domestic AI companies toward self-sufficiency in silicon design.

Top Comments

u/a_beautiful_rhind (99 points · permalink)

The more the merrier.

u/Tai9ch (29 points · permalink)

"Nvidia is at zero in China and staying ​there. DeepSeek has almost no chance of selling silicon outside of China unless it gets access to leading edge manufacturing,"

Sell something with > 32GB and > 1TB/s RAM for under $5k in the consmer market and it'll sell. It could be 80 channel DDR3 with 512MB DIMMs and use 800W and it'd still sell.

u/sonicandfffan (17 points · permalink)

Water is wet, sources say


usage limit reset and massively, 5H limits removed entirely. Your move Anthropic

270 points · 53 comments · r/singularity · by u/Exodus_Green

Screenshot of ChatGPT usage analytics showing no 5-hour limit

OpenAI has removed the 5-hour usage window from ChatGPT and Codex, effectively eliminating the daily rate cap that had constrained heavy users. The change appears to be a strategic response to Anthropic's competitive moves, with users noting that the removal makes Codex a significantly more attractive option compared to Claude. The post includes a screenshot of the analytics tool showing the limit is gone, and the community is discussing whether this is a permanent policy shift or a temporary competitive maneuver.

Interesting Points
  • The 5-hour limit was one of the most criticized features of ChatGPT's usage policy, forcing users to wait for resets during intensive workflows.
  • The removal coincides with Anthropic extending Fable 5 rate limits through July 19, suggesting an escalating competition between the two platforms.
  • Some users report that the weekly limits remain unchanged, meaning heavy users should still monitor their total consumption.
  • The change appears to be temporary, with some users noting that limits were restored after a brief period.
Top Comments

u/YogiBarelyThere (45 points · permalink)

Thank goodness. Those 5 hour breaks were awful.

u/Cagnazzo82 (1 points · permalink)

OpenAI is responsible for forcing Anthropic to be consumer friendly.

The consumers are winning hard from this competition.

u/whoknowsifimjoking (1 points · permalink)

Entirely, temporarily.

u/Exodus_Green (1 points · permalink)

As much as I like Claude, it's getting increasingly harder to justify it over Codex. Fable has been a game changer but so was 5.6 and now 5H limits are gone, with ANOTHER reset? I would like to know just how much compute they're sat on right now

I should edit this to add that the limits are gone temporarily as it appears some users are unable to read the image I posted and have gotten upset about my choice of wording

u/mvandemar (1 points · permalink)

I hope people understand that removing the 5 hour limit does not affect the weekly limit at all, y'all need to keep an eye on that or you're going to wind up stuck as hell.

Same story in 6 more subreddits: r/ChatGPT, r/OpenAI, r/OpenAI, r/ChatGPT, r/OpenAI, r/OpenAI

Usage reset, and 5-hour limits removed

157 points · 26 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/PropertyOwn7036

If you noticed that in Codex you no longer a see a 5-hour usage limit, that's not a bug.

92 points · 26 comments · r/OpenAI · by u/xeinebiu

No 5hr usage limit anymore?

65 points · 29 comments · r/OpenAI · by u/No_Twist_678

Did they remove the 5 hour limit?

44 points · 19 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/Flerewn

They really dropped these back to back huh

38 points · r/OpenAI

No 5h and they reset just now?

28 points · r/OpenAI


Just leaving this here for someone to see it and fix things

228 points · 45 comments · r/OpenAI · by u/py-net

Screenshot showing ChatGPT app confusion after Codex rebranding

A user shared a screenshot showing confusion in the ChatGPT app following the Codex rebranding. The post highlights the messy transition where the app interface became confusing for users trying to find their way to different model options. The community response focused on the poor UX of the rebranding, with users noting that the naming conventions are all over the place and the site is horrible to browse.

Interesting Points
  • The post shows confusion in the ChatGPT app after the Codex rebranding.
  • Users report that ChatGPT Classic doesn't autoupdate in place into Codex/ChatGPT.
  • The community notes that OpenAI's naming conventions are inconsistent and the site is difficult to navigate.
  • Some users suggest using the web version as a workaround for the app issues.
Top Comments

u/bespoke_tech_partner (88 points · permalink)

ChatGPT classic

u/Tripple_sneeed (36 points · permalink)

I don't know if there's a joke here that I'm missing but their naming conventions are truly all over the place and their site is horrible to browse. I had to bookmark the codex status page because it took me like 10 minutes to find. I still can't find it without the bookmark, lma. It's probably the only thing I've bookmarked in the last 10 years

u/Different_Berry5015 (32 points · permalink)

Codex changed into ChatGPT and ChatGPT changed into ChatGPT Classic. ChatGPT Classic doesn't autoupdate in place into Codex/ChatGPT.

Just use the web version.

u/Ok_Elderberry_6727 (43 points · permalink)

Drop-down on left and go down to normal conversations and your back to chatty, hope this helps.

u/Nuphoth (6 points · permalink)

They should honestly just copy Anthropic on this. This new change is way too messy.


163 more Reddit stories

Updates: 06:00 AM PDT · 09:00 AM PDT · 12:00 PM PDT · 03:00 PM PDT · 06:00 PM PDT