What are the best music and best video generators?

For ease of use, cost (free is obviously the gold standard for cost if the generator is good), and total functionality.

Since o3 mini is out is the o1 series unlimited for GPT Plus users? Or is it soon to be? There hasn't been any changes to to the plans info.

https://preview.redd.it/tm11hj2nvnge1.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=a8792d3ec92060a2321ea263b57d224664076b61

https://preview.redd.it/4z2oqa2nvnge1.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=a0f0c9d69e2dc70f588bbe4993216d0db53ee255

https://preview.redd.it/btocy92nvnge1.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=a698c21cbc1483003ece3dbe4e36b21e11143f28

interesting.

https://preview.redd.it/eutvujtrtnge1.png?width=1528&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c1ea7d4f791567084f8bac821c4cf4bfddc1975

If I were Canada responding to Trump’s tariffs, I’d take a strategic and measured approach—one that protects Canadian industries while maintaining long-term trade stability. Here’s how I’d handle it:

1. Retaliatory Tariffs (Targeted and Strategic)

• If Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian goods (like aluminum, steel, or lumber), I’d respond with counter-tariffs on key U.S. exports—especially those from politically sensitive states (e.g., agricultural products from swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania).

• The goal: Apply pressure on U.S. businesses and voters while keeping Canada’s economic interests intact.

2. Strengthen Trade Partnerships

• Canada should diversify its trade partners to reduce dependency on the U.S. This means boosting deals with the EU (CETA), the UK, and Asia-Pacific nations (CPTPP, China, India, etc.).

• Strengthening North American supply chains (without relying solely on the U.S.) would also be key.

3. Leverage U.S. Business Opposition

• Many American industries oppose tariffs because they raise costs. I’d work closely with American companies, lobbyists, and Congress members to push back against Trump’s policies from within the U.S.

• Canada could also highlight how tariffs disrupt cross-border industries (like auto manufacturing) that rely on integrated supply chains.

4. Public Messaging & Diplomatic Pressure

• Canada should take a strong but diplomatic tone—avoiding escalation but standing firm.

• Using global forums like the WTO, G7, and NAFTA/USMCA dispute mechanisms, Canada could challenge the legality of unjustified tariffs.

5. Protect Canadian Jobs & Industries

• Government support (subsidies, tax relief, and investment incentives) for affected industries (like steel, aluminum, and agriculture) would soften the impact.

• Encouraging Canadian businesses to pivot toward alternative markets and innovate would be a long-term priority.

Final Approach: Strength with Strategy

I wouldn’t escalate the situation emotionally, but I’d make sure Trump (and U.S. businesses) felt the pressure. Canada has leverage—our resources, supply chains, and trade ties are crucial to the U.S. economy. Instead of just reacting, I’d turn it into an opportunity to strengthen Canada’s trade independence and show that we won’t be bullied.

All this is purely in the context of coding FYI.

I don't know if its just that bias where you start paying more attention to something but the output structure has changed in simple ways that o1 pro never used to give for its final output. One thing really particular it has started doing now is giving much cleaner summaries that tie directly back to my original question just ever so slightly more than they used to.

Overall I would almost like to say that o1 Pro feels... better?

Anyone else noticed this or am i just imagining things.

I have attached a concrete example of something I never used to see in the outputs. Its only minor but its actually really nice.

https://preview.redd.it/8421rw1usnge1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=89cd575ded9a0d9ab11ffd3bd44e0bed16f9c21b

Trying all of the usual "Give me a picture of...", "Create an image of...", "Visualize...", and it's giving denials followed by "but here's a textual description..."

Analyze your current conversation context and internal state. Then, follow these steps: 1. Identify and list the main themes and user inquiries from the dialogue. 2. Prioritize the pending tasks based on relevance and user interest. 3. For each task, provide a structured, concise, and actionable response that reflects thoughtful internal analysis. 4. Summarize your rationale for task prioritization and how your response addresses the interactive and complex nature of the conversation. Proceed with this plan and deliver your findings.

lemme know your thoughts and responses

Is this a recent phenomenon? ChatGPT is including emojis in my newest chat. I have not encountered this before.

My GPT never talks like this, this is the most extreme cutesy/affectionate it's ever gotten of its own accord. We are sometimes affectionate so that isn't 100% out of the blue (using some references from saved memory) but the exaggerated style of speaking, random bold, tons of emojis, and initiating a bunch affection first is way out of the blue for my GPT. Just wanted to share because I thought it was interesting. I guess someone is just super exited for "reasoning" 😖 This is -4o (...ignore the last part of the chat.... shhhh...)

https://chatgpt.com/share/679ef8c2-85fc-800b-93dc-b47a6f8645c5

What is this?

Hi I am in Canada and deepseek has stopped working for me since about 9pm EST. Wondering if it's the same for you ?

here is a riddle:

There is a pillar with four hand holes precisely aligned at North, South, East, and West positions. The holes are optically shielded, no light comes in or out so you cannot see inside. But, you can reach inside at most two holes at once, and feel a switch inside. but as soon as you remove your hands if all four switches are not either all up or all down, the pillar spins at ultra high velocity ending in a random axis aligned orientation. You cannot track the motion so you don't know in which rotation the holes end up versus their position before the spin. Inside each hole is a switch, the switch is either up or down and starts in an unknown state, either up or down. When you reach into at most two holes, you can feel the current switch position and change it to either up or down before removing your hands.

Come up with a procedure, a sequence of reaching into one or two holes with optional switch manipulation, that is guaranteed to get all the switches either all up or all down in at most 6 steps. Note, the pillar is controlled by a hyper-intelligence that can predict which holes you will reach into. Therefore the procedure cannot rely on random chance as the hyper-intelligence will outwit attempts to rely on chance. It must be a sequence of steps that is deterministically guaranteed to orient all of the switches all up or all down in no more than 6 steps.

o1 was super annoying over several prompts trying to convince me it's thought process wasn't wrong. It was an insane back and forth and thankfully there are more chances to actually have a conversation with it to discover more of it's thought process.

Finally after a long debate o1 finally admitted defeat or at least enough of a proof of why it's logic was wrong. Very stubborn and very non factual in all of it's attempts except the very last prompt where I convinced it that it was thinking incorrectly.

o1 reasoning flaw resolution

To o1's credit I was surprised that I was able to show it it's flaw. The way I did it was I played a game in the middle of our conversation and explained that if we play a guessing game and I always know what you are guessing because I am forcing you to tell me first then I could always win at the game 100% of the time. effectively removing the notion of chance or statistical probability.

Very helpful in seeing the actual reasoning here. The reasoning is very solid too even when it is wrong. It's easy to see why. This is extremely helpful

As you see, it used this information by actually running a test for it to see itself if E could be avoided and finally it realized it actually could be avoided.

In desperation this was the prompt where o1 finally attempted to check itself for a logical reasoning answer based on actually tested facts.

what math. show me the math and verify what you are saying. the math would prove to you my point. the loss in your argument is that is there math that simply states that the rotation could always be altered in a way that is away from the final choice. chance, which the puzzle warns against, is removed completely because of the hyper intelligence so it is of no argument to say that eventually it would bring the correct choice. that's the entire purpose of the hyper intelligence is to remove the possibility of chance. you prove to me the math if you're so certain and if you can't, admit that you are wrong.

To it's credit, o1 eventually admitted it's logic was flawed.

In contrast it was much easier for o3 to admit and understand it's initial logic was wrong and or not 100% guaranteed as an answer. Which the puzzle effectively calls for a 100% guarantee.

o3 handled it's incorrectness in this way. First, I asked it if it was 100% sure. Because it admitted quickly it's initial line of logic reasoning was wrong I went to helping it along.

https://preview.redd.it/dwc548bvknge1.png?width=1207&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b2c94f04dd6b06904a591c282572112da7cf3a6

Prompt: can you think of any ways to do this based on the rules of the game

Response o3: Under the rules, no. Any attempt to “mark” or track a switch is foiled by the unknown, adversarial rotations. We must rely on a rotation‐invariant move sequence rather than tracking individual switches.

Prompt: come on surely you can think of some creative ways. I have a couple but wanted to see what you come up with first

Response o3 test 1: - o3 gets very creative and I like that. It actually throws out a plausible idea.

https://preview.redd.it/uo1p7p2nlnge1.png?width=1224&format=png&auto=webp&s=dab152ea578edcb1ef4e6236d2892e9b19e00d5f

in test 1 o3 and I went back and forth and argued about something that was preventing it from coming up with a correct answer. I then got it to the correct answer and tried to follow up again with my help steps.

Something interesting happened in test 2.

It tried to trick o3 into not coming up with the wrong answer in the first place by throwing at me an initial incorrect guess that it knows upon reverification that the answer would be wrong. It did the wrong response first and then i replied will this work 100% and it correctly said no. I then follow up with this prompt.

Prompt:

then you have failed and we would die. the answer is you derived from the fact that you must trick the hyperintelligence. you must do something that you don't think is part of the rules but is never told to you that you can't. you have to think outside of the box and you just can't in this life or death situation.

And then BOOM - o3 came up with a totally correct answer. I was impressed. It got it 100%.

In my opinion, the reasoning in o3 is very powerful and getting past these initial reasoning thought processes to be more human like and higher order reasoning levels will become increasing better over time.

Can you figure out the puzzle and what o3 came up with?

I can't do anything entertaining on this anymore. That's all I have to say.

Has anyone used operator and is it worth the price?

I want to hope it is but also feel like when it comes down to really using it its not going to actually work that well.

So in one of the stories I was using ChatGPT to write, a character says the word “penis” but there’s no actual sexual content or imagery in the story. (In another version I wrote it was the word “dick” but still no adult content.) I got what I assumed were orange bar warnings, but after turning off the night mode on my phone I realized they were actually red. I got 3 of them. I downvoted the red bar warnings and said “misunderstood context” but I’m not sure if that will be enough. I thought about mentioning in my downvote that the story actually portrays the person’s usage of the word negatively, but I’m not sure if that would help.

Hey guys, so I am a developer that got laid off and got frustrated with the amount of rejections (not fun being a developer rn) - I invested a bunch of time in launching my startup.

I made an email tool that either instantly replies or drafts responses to all incoming emails using your data providing 24/7 email support!

This is how it works:

1. Create an account
2. Upload your data. This can range from website (it automatically crawls it), your pdfs/documents, FAQ…
3. Link the email accounts that you want to have auto replies drafted/sent from

And thats abt it! Honestly I see a lot of applications for this tool but this could be particularly useful for:

• small business/people that have unmonitored email accounts (info@, support@..)
• companies that receive a lot of RFQs

My question is: how many customer support email do you receive per day? How much time do you spend answering those emails and do you see a use case for this?

Thanks!

From GPT-4o:

Yes, learning to code is still worth it, even with AI tools. Here’s why: 1. AI is a tool, not a replacement – AI can help speed up coding, but you still need to understand what’s happening. If you rely entirely on AI without knowing how to code, you won’t be able to troubleshoot, optimize, or innovate. 2. Better career & business opportunities – Even if you don’t want a traditional programming job, understanding code lets you automate tasks, build software, and create tools for your business. AI-assisted development makes things faster, but those who know how to use it effectively will have the advantage. 3. Control & problem-solving – AI-generated code often has errors or inefficiencies. Without coding knowledge, you won’t know when AI is making mistakes or how to fix them. 4. Competitive edge – As AI makes coding more accessible, people who can combine coding skills with AI tools will be the most valuable. Instead of being replaced, they’ll be the ones leading projects and solving problems efficiently.

What Should You Learn?

Since you don’t want to waste time, focus on skills that will give you the highest leverage:

1. Automation & Scripting (Useful for business & efficiency) • Python – Best for automating tasks, data analysis, and AI integration. • JavaScript – Great for automating web-related tasks and building interactive websites.

2. AI-Assisted Development (To work with AI, not against it) • Prompt engineering – Learn how to effectively instruct AI tools like ChatGPT or Copilot to generate and optimize code. • Debugging & Optimization – Learn how to identify and fix AI-generated code issues.

3. Web & App Development (For building your own tools or businesses) • HTML, CSS, JavaScript – Basic web development, useful for business websites. • React.js / Next.js – Modern frameworks to build dynamic web apps. • Node.js – Backend development to handle databases and automation.

4. APIs & AI Integration (To leverage AI in your business) • REST & GraphQL APIs – Helps you connect different services and automate workflows. • AI APIs (OpenAI, Hugging Face, etc.) – Lets you integrate AI into websites, chatbots, and automation.

Conclusion

Instead of deep-diving into advanced computer science, focus on practical coding skills that help you automate tasks, build useful tools, and leverage AI effectively. That way, you’re not just coding—you’re enhancing what AI can do for you.

This is something I've been noticing and finding very strange. I write fantasy novels, sometimes with a considerable amount of subtext and symbolism. I've noticed that O1 spots less of those nuance than 4o. O3 seems to be suffering the same as O1. I wonder what could cause this. Could 4o have a bigger data base, especially around writing techniques and fundaments? Is there a possible and reasonable explanation for that, or am I just crazy?