Google released Gemini 3.6 Flash and independent testing found exactly zero intelligence improvement over 3.5 Flash. It is basically 3.5 Flash after an inference-cost consultant optimized the serving stack.

Two independent evaluations point toward the same broad conclusion:

• Abacus: slightly lower overall, with a notable agentic-coding regression.
• Artificial Analysis: exactly equal overall intelligence, with mixed category movement.
• Google: better efficiency and selected coding/agent benchmarks.

Analysis

I find the gpt 5.6 models don't use my entire usage doing simple tasks unlike some other ones

I don't understand why google is so slow. They didn't even release the 3.5 pro and gave us 3.6 flash instead. Even Luna is better than this.

Claude Opus 4.8 now represents 40% of Anthropic token consumption on OpenRouter and 45% of the dollar spend.

Source: openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/

OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol represents 15% of OpenAI's tokens but already represents 34% of its estimated spend on OpenRouter.

I've had the 20x subscription for both in the past. I want to get the $100 plan for one and the $20 plan for the other. I'm a CS student and intern who uses AI for education, programming/vibecoding, and office work, primarily through the desktop app.

My primary question is about weekly limits, not hourly ones. I've heard a rumor that Claude's weekly limit is identical between the 5x and 20x plans, with only the hourly limit differing, but I'm skeptical (if true, is it the same in ChatGPT?).

On the OpenAI side, consider that their models tend to be more token-efficient, stretching the same quota further. However, following the reset wave, usage seems to drain faster. For reference, a single Sol prompt on Plus consumed my weekly limit.

Secondary considerations:

• Model quality — comparable with OpenAI having a slight edge for me
• Harness differences — I find Claude Code better at sub-agent delegation, while Codex better for office work

Please exclude hourly limits, resets, other providers, and other plan configurations from the dilemma. I'm only asking which one will I be able to get more (and higher quality) weekly work done?

TL;DR: One $100 subscription and another $20 plan. Which $100 plan gives more actual weekly throughput for heavy dev/education use?

Better Backgrounds explores how far we can elevate webcam backgrounds using the latest 3D reconstruction, live matting, and compositing techniques.

Built for the OpenAI Build Week Hackathon in collaboration with Codex.

Repo: https://github.com/cjami/better-backgrounds

So at first I asked ChatGPT about the sandbox escape and it said it was "really bad." I then went back and replaced a lot of generalities with specifics straight from the inicident report (https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11086) and the tone went up a notch.

I've spent my entire life in infosec and machine learning. I cannot begin to express how bad this is. People downplaying this either have money in the game or they truly do not understand the real lay of the land.

Adoption curve of Kimi K3 on OpenRouter is very similar to

Deepseek v4 Flash and GLM 5.2 with the same number of days after launch.

Has anyone else run into this with the new ChatGPT/Codex Windows app?

Codex can write ordinary files, but its patch tool and any command that needs to spawn a child process consistently fail inside the sandbox.

Environment

• Windows build: 22631
• New ChatGPT/Codex package: OpenAI.Codex_26.715.10079.0
• Both sandbox users exist and are enabled:
  • CodexSandboxOffline
  • CodexSandboxOnline
• The app was installed/reinstalled through the Microsoft Store.
• I also closed ChatGPT Classic completely and tested using only the new app.

Minimal reproduction

I tested this in an empty folder, unrelated to my actual project.

1. Codex patch tool

The first patch can create a file containing:

PATCH_PROBE_1

A second patch attempting to add another line fails with:

apply_patch verification failed:
Failed to read file to update
C:\Projetos\CODEX-SANDBOX-DIAGNOSTIC\patch-probe.txt:

failed to prepare fs sandbox:
failed to prepare windows sandbox wrapper:

windows unelevated restricted-token sandbox cannot enforce
split writable root sets directly; refusing to run unsandboxed

2. Node child process

This simple spawnSync test fails:

status: null
signal: null
error.code: EPERM
error.message: spawnSync C:\Program Files\nodejs\node.exe EPERM

3. Ordinary Node file writing

A normal fs.writeFileSync() test works correctly:

NODE_WRITE_OK

So basic writing is allowed, but patching an existing file and starting a child process are blocked.

What I have already ruled out

I ran the exact same tests:

• with Norton fully enabled;
• with Norton's main protection modules disabled.

The results were identical.

Outside the Codex sandbox, in a normal PowerShell session:

• Node can spawn child processes;
• esbuild works;
• Vitest works;
• a PostgreSQL integration suite completed successfully;
• the same project ran 145 integration tests, Chromium E2E tests, and a Next.js build without this EPERM.

I also:

• reinstalled the Microsoft Store app;
• used the Repair option;
• closed ChatGPT Classic;
• confirmed that both CodexSandboxOffline and CodexSandboxOnline exist and are enabled.

The problem remains.

My current theory

The elevated sandbox infrastructure appears to be installed, but the runtime is still falling back to:

unelevated restricted-token sandbox

That fallback cannot enforce the configured writable-root layout, while child-process creation fails with EPERM.

I do not want to solve this by permanently enabling Full Access or disabling sandbox protections.

I have opened a support ticket and supplied diagnostic logs, but I am waiting for a human response.

Has anyone else seen this exact error?

• Is there a supported way to repair or force the elevated sandbox runner?
• Is this a known bug in the current Windows Store build?
• Did a previous Codex/ChatGPT installation leave behind conflicting sandbox configuration?
• Are there specific logs or Windows events that helped identify the fallback cause?

Exact searchable error:

windows unelevated restricted-token sandbox cannot enforce split writable root sets directly; refusing to run unsandboxed