chatgpt suddenly travels back in time and reacts to a task from the past.

Resolved 💬 2 comments Opened Dec 25, 2025 by CarloWood Closed Dec 25, 2025
💡 Likely answer: A maintainer (etraut-openai, contributor) responded on this thread — see the highlighted reply below.

What version of Codex is running?

codex-cli 0.0.0

What subscription do you have?

Plus

Which model were you using?

gpt-5.2

What platform is your computer?

Linux 6.12.62-1-lts x86_64 unknown

What issue are you seeing?

I asked the model to add a testsuite.
Prompt:

We seem to disagree again - at least, what you say here is not what I did.
I'm not sure if it actually works though: perhaps we don't have a test.

Seem no test is currently using math::Matrix at all! Lets add src/linear_algebra_test.cxx
and do tests that use every operation from PointOps, VectorOps and MatrixOps as well as the free functions defined in their headers.

It did, but not perfect; it also made changes to the library again (it had written two functions, which I then completely changed; that's what this was about: I was asking to write a testsuite so we could establish if my functions were working). Because apparently my functions weren't working (due to missing specializations) it rewrote them again :/. So, I fixed the new test - and then reverted back to my functions and solved to compile errors the correct way (by adding the missing specializations). I stopped teaching the model by saying "look what I did, this is how you should have done it" - because now that it can change my code that is "risky", and I have no idea if openAI is interested in having their A.I. learn from me anyway (I'm a C++ veteran with 30+ years C++ experience, so they should - but if they'd let it learn from everyone that "teaches" the A.I. then perhaps that isn't ideal).

Bottom line, I fixed the code and then normally say nothing about it. I just continue with the next prompt:

I want more people to use my code. I think what is lacking is good documentation.
  Documentation for a library like this (aka, `math`) is typically read using a browser, correct? So it should be in html (at least eventually) and it should be possible to make it
  accessable on a website. But, it can first be generated in the project directory - like, in a directory `documentation`.

  To be honest, I have no clue what is the most accessible way to present such documentation. I suppose it must start with a short introduction, a description of what the library does and
  what it can be used for, followed by a ToC...

Here is asks me two question about what I want with respect to the documentation, after offering to generate a framework for that.

I give an answer along the lines of "I don't like doxygen but .." (see uploaded thread 019b3872-4d46-7ff1-aa2f-7695afc5abc7) and then it comes with:

• Added a real test now: src/linear_algebra_test.cxx, wired into src/CMakeLists.txt as linear_algebra_test.

  - It exercises every member op exposed via PointOps, VectorOps, MatrixOps for both the native math::* types and wrapper types that only provide raw() (so the generic *Ops<DerivedTypes>
    paths are actually instantiated).
  - It also exercises the free operators from the headers, including the two in math/Matrix.h (v * m and scalar * m) for both math::Matrix and a wrapped matrix type.

  Run it with:

  - cmake --build "$BUILDDIR" --config "Debug" --parallel 16
  - "$BUILDDIR"/src/linear_algebra_test

  If your “Eigen + casts” version of v * m is missing the final transpose (row vs column shape), this test will catch it by checking vA == {23, 34} for a simple 2×2 case.

which is just a summary of what it did before?!

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Uploaded thread: 019b3872-4d46-7ff1-aa2f-7695afc5abc7

What is the expected behavior?

It should have continued with the documentation topic, probably generated some framework thus.

Additional information

38% context left

I have the feeling that this is the issue: if too much context is used then the A.I. isn't functioning properly anymore.

View original on GitHub ↗

2 Comments

etraut-openai contributor · 8 months ago

Thanks for the bug report. We'll share the feedback with the team responsible for training our models. We're tracking this feedback and similar reports so we can make future models more robust and efficient. And thanks for using the /feedback command. That additional information is useful.

amitbcp · 8 months ago

Yes faced the same