“Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. [ChatGPT September 25 Version]”
I am a paying customer.
It seems that if I am unable to reach oaistatic.com, I can’t use ChatGPT4 anymore. Has anyone any idea how to work around this?
Read one of the other many topics which have covered this issue.
In the meantime, please post your DNS server IP address.
Good answer. I switched to Google DNS and it works perfectly. Thanks.
Still, I’m curious which DNS you were using before.
So far I’ve only been able to determine OpenDNS isn’t resolving the domain, but I’m looking for more so we can have a clearer picture of the issue.
I live in Cyprus and I have a Cyta router which is called ZHXN H268Q V7.0. The admin pages of the router don’t show the DNS server.
I believe uses 195.14.130.220 and 195.14.130.170 based on this:
https://www.cyta.com.cy/mp/informational/docs/settingforthirdpartymodem.pdf
Neither of those are DNS servers. (Or they don’t allow random connections for lookups.)
On Windows you can type,
ipconfig/all
Into a command prompt.
On Linux you can use Network Tools or try one of,
nmcli dev show eth0 | grep IP4
resolvectl dns
systemd-resolve --status | grep "DNS Servers"
192.168.0.254 as I am behind a consumer router which hides all network information.
Ah… I see.
Unfortunate. I was hoping to try to get some additional information.
Thank you for trying though! I’m glad to hear your issue is resolved.
Novice speaking rn. I use a laptop owned by the organization I work for and I’m have the same issue like everyone else is having regarding the “Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. ChatGPT September 25 Version”. I’m unable to mess around with the DNS setting of my device due to it being locked by my organization.
Is this my organizations way of saying “No more using ChatGPT”? Because I can’t seem to find a fix other than messing with the settings in the DNS.
The same here.
It seems like everything was working OK yesterday and now it does not.
For OPENAI team would be useful to use ChatGPT option on trying to predict what would be the response for a general chat-user when the Company switched some of the services to a newly created domain. The most anti-viruses software treat the newly created domains as a potentially harmful. For the professional OPENAI developer team that would be probably a ‘common knowledge’, which is not the fact for general ChatGPT-user.
Please consider this constructive feedback for future releases of very useful AI platform as ChatGPT.
Best wishes from occasional user of ChatGPT.
Victor
You can go into your WiFi router’s configuration portal.
In many, they allow you to keep the dynamic IP address that is assigned by your ISP, while at the same time you can modify the DNS server that is used for name lookups.
DNS servers:
1.1.1.1 - Cloudflare
4.2.2.4 - Level3
8.8.8.8 - Google
Unlikely.
It’s far more likely whatever DNS server used by your ISP is simply out of date and will be updated eventually.
I am guessing if you took the laptop home and connected to your Wi-Fi (or some other network) it’s very likely the page would work without issue.
What you have to realize is the number of users affected is actually incredibly small—you’re just very vocal.
The vast majority of DNS servers are updated within 24–48 hours. OpenAI waited several days after registering the new domain before funneling traffic to it.
They did exactly what they should have done.
They cannot be expected to wait forever while some DNS servers drag their feet on updating their indices.
Antivirus software shouldn’t be doing anything with the domains your browser connects assets from.
I understand that the number of affected users is relatively small, but it would be helpful to have more specific information on the percentage. Could you please provide clarification on what is meant by ‘incredibly small’? Is it around 10%, 40%, or some other number?
While it is true that the majority of DNS servers are updated within 24-48 hours, it would have been more user-friendly if OpenAI had waited for a month before redirecting traffic to the new domain. This is because it typically takes that amount of time for a newly created DNS domain to transition from ‘new’ to ‘not-new’ status, which would have avoided any potential issues.
I respectfully disagree with the statement that OpenAI did exactly what they should have done. It would have been beneficial to take preventive measures if the new configuration of the service affected even a small group of users. Especially if these prevention efforts are easy to implement.
I understand that waiting forever is not expected, but a reasonable waiting period of one month would have facilitated a smoother transition to the new service.
Regarding the statement about antivirus software, it appears that the term ‘antivirus’ is being used to refer to blocking software that prevents access to ChatGPT services.
In the future, OpenAI should definitely consider aging a newly registered domain for a period of one month prior to general use.
Many security platforms and DNS filtering solutions block NRDs: Zscaler, FortiGuard, Palo Alto, Check Point, NextDNS, ControlD… Many of these block NRDs by default. Consequently, for users within high-security environments, ChatGPT could potentially become generally unavailable for an extended period of time.
(I’m wondering how much extraneous volume OAICS had to absorb as a result of oaistatic.com).
It’s also an industry-standard security recommendation to block NRDs:
Based on the high volume of problem reports that I’ve observed across multiple channels—and distinct users—I would suspect that the impact has been significantly greater than what some may believe.
While I get why newly-registered domains are blocked, it seems rather heavy-handed and borderline abusive to their own customers for companies to blanket-ban newly-registered domains.
Is everyone at the companies you mentioned asleep at the wheel?
When these many, many requests are pouring in for cdn.oaistatic.com side they don’t have a mechanism in place for better evaluating whether the block is deserved?
Quite the opposite. If NRDs were not blocked, it would be borderline abusive: the blocking of NRDs alone prevent an astonishing number of cybercrimes. NRD blocking is a vital—and uniquely effective—countermeasure against bad actors.
Infact, it’s so effective that this very forum leverages the same general strategy. New users start out untrusted, just like newly-registered domains. As a user ages, and engages in reputation-building activities, the user gains trust, and consequently limitations are lifted; same for NRDs.
No. If you’re volunteering to author an RFC on a trust protocol for NRDs, you have my full encouragement.
I agree with one caveat…
Malicious NRD blocking is vital and effective.
Blocking all NRDs is like an over-active immune system.
Sure, if new users were greeted with a 404 error page for the first 30 days they visited the forum.
Not at all.
But it would be nice if these
understood the gilded-cage they climbed into well-enough to not go around blaming everyone else for their misfortunes.
I have MFA enabled everywhere it’s supported, I don’t cry about all the things it makes difficult or impossible.
You can thank the bad actors that ruined it for everyone else: well over a whopping 7 out of every 10 NRDs are malicious.
Given that reality, and given that a trust protocol for NRDs doesn’t yet exist; temporarily blocking all NRDs is a sensible approach to keep users much safer than they would otherwise be. This is why it has been adopted as the default across most flagship security platforms.
Users were literally greeted with NXDOMAINs for weeks when they visited ChatGPT.
So you’re—as examples—blaming a 19-year-old anthropology student for not being able to access ChatGPT for weeks because someone on her university’s technical staff, years ago, implemented a recommended security practice? And you’re blaming a 23-year-old intern at a startup for not being able to access ChatGPT because a contractor that set up the startup’s network implemented controls required to pass a security audit?
To the extent that OpenAI is interested in ensuring that this doesn’t happen again, it would be OpenAI’s responsibility to conform to an industry standard—not for industry, that has adopted a reasonable security practice, to be attacked for adopting a reasonable security practice.
No, I’m suggesting they point their ire at the parties responsible for their troubles, the university’s technical staff or the contractor who set up their network, respectively.
Please point me to this “industry standard,” I can’t seem to find any reference to it at ICANN.
And if this is, in fact, “industry standard,” why don’t the largest providers of DNS services follow this “standard?”