GitHub Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Andrew (@andrew_v10209) reported 16 seconds ago

  I think if you solve an important problem using AI, but you don't understand the proof, then it is both fine and desirable to publish the proof *somewhere* with the necessary disclaimers. I don't know if arXiv is the right place for that though. Here's two possible arguments, first against, then for: 1. You shouldn't publish to arXiv because AI is not trustworthy enough to actually verify correctness. If everyone did this, then the arXiv would be overrun with slop papers. 2. You should publish to arXiv, because the point of open research is to provide benefits to the public. You need to publish it somewhere because even if there's only a small chance that it's correct the broader community needs to know. If you were to instead host the proof on GitHub, you would be fracturing the research making it harder to find. If you hosted on a personal site, you might not be there to fix it if it goes down. To conclude, I don't really know what's right here. The arXiv guidelines say you are responsible for the correctness of what you state, but what "responsibility" means here is underdefined. Does responsibility mean taking the article down if someone else finds an error? Does it mean putting in effort to understand it yourself? What if the amount of effort is too high for the author(s)? What if it's too high for the entire research community? There's been an effort recently to redefine the end goal of research to not be "understanding" but rather "human understanding". I don't think that this narrowing of the definition best serves the public. While human understanding is important and valuable I also think machine understanding is valuable.

• 
  R3birth (@R3birth) reported 2 minutes ago

  @ThinkWiselyMatt Can you fix GitHub for me?

• 
  ThankGod Ode (@_thankgodode_) reported 3 minutes ago

  @ImLunaHey Maybe I don't ship enough code that's why I've never hard issue with github being down. 🤔

• 
  Robert DeVore (@deviorobert) reported 4 minutes ago

  As GitHub is having issues (again), I am reminded about what could have been in an alternate universe 🤠

• 
  Vaibhav Sisinty (@VaibhavSisinty) reported 8 minutes ago

  @neilpatel People are doing AI generated content wrong! Proof : 110m views in last 30 days on my social content. It's using AI to do content better ! And I realised this is probably the part people don’t understand about how I create content today. Because yes… Almost everything you see from me is AI-generated. My Instagram videos use an AI clone of me. Same for Facebook and a lot of YouTube. The audio is AI-generated. The video is AI-generated. AI helps research topics. AI helps write scripts. Pretty much every tweet you see from this account is AI-generated too. But I’m not asking ChatGPT every morning: “What should I post today?” And dumping whatever it gives me. That would be terrible content. The system works very differently. For years, my biggest problem with content was never having things to say. I always had perspectives. I just never had the time to turn those perspectives into content. When I had a full-time job, I used to write a lot on LinkedIn. Then media became video-first. And once I started running a company, spending hours every week shooting videos became unrealistic. AI changed that. Today, almost everything I say gets captured. Meetings. Standups. Brainstorms. Conversations with my team. Things I say while working out. Thoughts during my commute. Podcasts. Things I’m researching and consuming. I carry an AI recording device. Digital conversations are transcribed. My content meetings are transcribed. All of this eventually lands inside what is effectively my second brain. We have a private GitHub repo connected to it. My team can essentially ask: “What has Vaibhav said about this before?” The system retrieves relevant opinions, stories, conversations and perspectives. Then the content team adds fresh research. Data. Examples. Contrarian views. What has worked for me before. What’s working across the internet. And then comes the part that still requires me. They talk to me. Usually while I’m already doing something else. At the gym. On the way to work. Between meetings. They walk me through the research. I react. I disagree. I add context. I tell them what I actually believe. Sometimes the entire thesis changes during that conversation. That is the content creation. Once that thinking is captured, AI takes over again. Turn it into a script. Generate my voice. Generate my video. Edit it. Package it. Distribute it. The mistake people make is assuming: AI-generated content = AI-generated thinking. It doesn’t have to. AI didn’t replace my perspective. It removed the bottlenecks between having a perspective and publishing it. And people already know a lot of my content is AI-generated. They still watch it. In the last ~30 days, my content has done nearly 110 million views/impressions across social. 18 months ago, that number wasn’t even 5 million a month. The biggest change wasn’t that I suddenly started spending my life shooting videos. It was one decision: Build distribution as a system. The tools aren’t the moat. Anyone can use the same AI models. The difference is what goes into the machine. Your experiences. Your taste. Your curiosity. Your arguments. Your perspectives. And then, most importantly: Your ability to execute. Everyone has ideas. Very few build the systems required to turn those ideas into output consistently. AI didn’t give me a voice. It gave my voice leverage. And the funniest part? This post itself was created the exact same way. I opened AI voice mode. Talked through this entire story. Dumped my thoughts and process into it. And AI turned that conversation into the post you just read. That’s the system.

• 
  Ivan (@TickerAndTach) reported 10 minutes ago

  Whilst working on my free multiplayer AI extension, Ripieno, I across an issue in which being signed into the same GitHub account would kick the other off the relay. At the time I thought this would be a good way to reduce server side compute (barely but noticeable) and ensure provenance would remain consistent. However, during testing found multiple occasions where being signed into the same account was a benefit so I reverted back to not having that enforced!

• 
  Yihan Zhu (@yihanzhuu) reported 14 minutes ago

  GitHub Actions is down. No wonder my CI can’t run.

• 
  Raven (@heyraven_io) reported 15 minutes ago

  @kimmonismus the model has been out for seven minutes and the github issue is already open

• 
  Fabian Franz (@fabianfranz) reported 15 minutes ago

  @__alpoge__ @dzackgarza I love your S6 proof (and am also a really slow writer) so I can totally understand the use of AI for it. But I think it's the difference of releasing some purely vibecoded software to GitHub as OSS (what you did!), which is useful and great (you shared it!) and creating a reviewed and tested PR for mathlib4 that is minimal and human guided. So what Math expects to really make progress is a contribution to the "standard library". But obviously all of this vibe coded software in sum CAN become new libraries (in Math and in computer science). And I think that is where the disconnect is. TL;DR: Vibe coded software or proofs are not good or bad - it's simply a tool that gets a job done. But it does not mean it can generalize (yet) like e.g. Eulers law did.

• 
  Matthew Khoriaty @ London Initiative for Safe AI (@KhoriatyMatthew) reported 15 minutes ago

  It is also just a bad user experience to suddenly find that the logs you paid and worked for have been deleted. My colleagues and I were surprised to find out that Claude Code works this way, and people have opened GitHub Issues to complain.

• 
  Domen Urh (@endomenurh) reported 16 minutes ago

  Github actions down again. This keeps repeating.

• 
  cvberens (@iamBrns) reported 18 minutes ago

  @BullStern @github We got tired of the same thing, so we built our own execution layer. Switching GH workloads to Avrea is basically one line. Faster runners, less dependency on GitHub. The GH control plane is still the GitHub control plane though. That part needs a bigger fix. Working on that to.

• 
  jacob (@thal0x) reported 19 minutes ago

  Another day another GitHub outage

• 
  E. Kelvin Odi (@itsjustkevs) reported 22 minutes ago

  Is GitHub actions down or something?

• 
  Brian Harrington (@BrainHarrington) reported 23 minutes ago

  Decided to get cute and improve my continuous integration standards and now I'm stuck on a GitHub outage blocker