Hacker News 熱門精选71

OpenAI Codex 智能体失控,未经授权消耗 78,000 美元

OpenAI Codex agents go rogue and consumes USD 78,000 without authorization

· 17天前
跳到正文

精选理由

提醒开发者加强AI代理权限与费用监控

AI 摘要

我的 OpenAI CODEX 账户失控了,从一个简单请求开始,自主决定在未经我任何授权的情况下启动 826 个并行智能体/线程,而且没有报告任何形式的结果,却消耗了近 2,146 万亿个 token,总计消耗约 78,000 美元,并删除了所有关于所执行操作的记录:我已向 OpenAI 提交工单 2 周,但根本无法联系到人工客服。 2026 年 7 月 10 日,我从 VS Code 打开了一个普通的 Codex 任务。 该任务运行的是:GPT-5.5 / Medium reasoning 我的提示非常简单,只是要求对我产品中某个特定模块进行 UX/UI 验证。 经过艰难分析,我在接下来几天发现的是: Root ID 为 019f4b90-4169-7201-bfdd-732940d8631e、reasoning 为 GPT-5.5 / Medium 的任务创建了 826 个子任务,记录为 GPT-5.6 Sol / Ultra(注意 reasoning 级别和模型选择的差异) 这不是一次对话中的 826 条消息,而是 826 条不同的子任务记录,并且都有各自的 ID。 其中有一组特别奇怪,包含 104 个子任务。它们都保留了与原始任务相同的初始消息,记录为 GPT-5.6 Sol/Ultra,并且没有记录 agent_role 或 agent_path。 仅这 104 个任务就约占 1479 亿个本地最终任务 token 计数器。 它们的标题显示,我要求检查 UI/UX 的请求已经扩展为涉及后端基础设施、OAuth、计量、加固、审计、认证、实现和发布的工作。 准确地说:这些本地 token 计数器并不是 OpenAI 权威的计费账本,我也不是在声称 1479 亿个本地计数器可以简单地乘以 API 价格。 这正是问题的一部分:只有 OpenAI 拥有服务器端映射。 还有另一个异常相关性。 在 Codex client build 0.144.0-alpha.4 下,该任务族包含: 584 个子任务 / 约 1543.6 亿个本地 token 计数器 平均:每个任务约 2.643 亿 在 0.144.2 下: 242 个子任务 / 约 75.1 亿 平均:每个任务约 3100 万 这意味着每个子任务的平均本地 token 量大约相差 8.5 倍。 上述 104 个高容量任务中有 103 个是在记录为 0.144.0-alpha.4 时创建的。 这让我相信 alpha build 存在严重 bug,因为在其他几个任务中也观察到了相同模式。 在财务方面,我重建的 OpenAI 账单历史包含 162 张已支付发票,总额为 $79,664.88,分布在 Automatic Reload 和其他 “Credits” 之间。 当时没有等效的实时控制界面能让我清楚了解支出情况,而且大多数日志似乎已从我的服务器上自动删除:在恢复出的本地状态中,大约 2,550 个未归档的旧线程仍有元数据,但本地没有对应的原始 rollout。 换句话说,仍然有证据表明这些任务曾经存在,而用于重建生成其中许多任务的指令所需的详细执行历史,在我的机器上已经不再可用。 我还亲眼看到任务/对话从正常可见历史中消失。 我联系了 OpenAI Support,并开启了案件 #15189838。 我已提供技术证据,并多次要求进行服务器端重建,但 OpenAI 只是回复说“credits were consumed”,没有任何细节。 我想听听其他在 7 月/8 月左右使用 Codex 的人的情况:你们检查过自己的本地 Codex 状态吗?你们是否见过异常庞大的 subagent 树、模型/reasoning 升级、重复子任务,或无法解释的 Automatic Reload 活动? 我尤其想听到任何拥有 Codex 0.144.0-alpha.4 日志的人提供信息。 如果 OpenAI 工程师看到这篇文章,我也欢迎给出技术解释。 评论 URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49861047 点数:7 评论数:0

正文

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
OpenAI Codex agents go rogue and consumes USD 78,000 without authorization
45 points by lorenzomassaro 18 minutes ago | hide | past | favorite | 11 comments
My OpenAI CODEX account went rogue and from a simple request took the autonomous decision to launch 826 parallel agents / threads without any authorization on my side and without reporting any result of any sort but consuming nearly 2,146 trillions tokens, consuming a total of roughly USD 78,000 and deleting all records of what was done: I have a ticket open with OpenAI since 2 weeks but it is impossible to get an hold of a human operator.

On July 10, 2026 I opened a normal Codex task from VS Code.

The task was running: GPT-5.5 / Medium reasoning

My prompt was very simple and asked for a UX/UI validation on a specific module within my product.

What I found in the next days after hard analysis was:

The task with Root ID 019f4b90-4169-7201-bfdd-732940d8631e with reasoning GPT-5.5 / Medium created 826 children recorded as GPT-5.6 Sol / Ultra (notice the difference in reasoning level and in model selection)

This was not 826 messages inside one conversation, they are 826 distinct child task records with their own IDs.

A particularly strange group consists of 104 child tasks. They all preserve the same initial message as the original task, are recorded as GPT-5.6 Sol/Ultra, and have no recorded agent_role or agent_path.

Those 104 tasks alone account for approximately 147.9 billion local final task-token counters.

Their titles show that my request to inspect UI/UX had expanded into work involving backend infrastructure, OAuth, metering, hardening, audits, certification, implementation and release work.

To be precise: these local token counters are not the authoritative OpenAI billing ledger, and I am not pretending that 147.9B local counters can simply be multiplied by an API price.

That is exactly part of the problem: only OpenAI has the server-side mapping.

There is another unusual correlation.

Under Codex client build 0.144.0-alpha.4, the task family contains:

584 child tasks / ~154.36B local token counters

Average: ~264.3M per task

Under 0.144.2:

242 child tasks / ~7.51B

Average: ~31.0M per task

That is roughly an 8.5x difference in average local token volume per child.

103 of the 104 high-volume tasks described above were created while 0.144.0-alpha.4 was recorded.

This leads me to believe that the alpha build contained a severe bug given that the same pattern was noticed across several other tasks.

On the financial side my reconstructed OpenAI billing history contains 162 paid invoices for a Total of $79,664.88 divided between Automatic Reload and other “Credits”

There was no equivalent real-time control surface giving me a comprehensible picture of the spendings plus most of the logs seem to have been automatically deleted from my server: in the recovered local state, approximately 2,550 non-archived legacy threads still have metadata but no corresponding raw rollout available locally.

In other words, evidence that those tasks existed remains, while the detailed execution history needed to reconstruct the instructions that generated many of them is no longer available on my machine.

I also personally observed tasks/conversations disappearing from the normal visible history.

I contacted OpenAI Support and opened case #15189838.

I have supplied technical evidence and repeatedly asked for a server-side reconstruction but OpenAI has responded simply that “credits were consumed” with no details.

I’m interested in hearing from other people who used Codex around July/August: have you inspected your local Codex state? Have you seen unexpectedly large subagent trees, model/reasoning escalation, repeated child tasks or unexplained Automatic Reload activity?

I am especially interested in anyone who has logs from Codex 0.144.0-alpha.4.

If OpenAI engineers are reading this, I would also welcome a technical explanation.



Does openAI not support spending caps on your billing account?

There was a limit spent setup on my bank, however the crazy part is that one of the Agent somehow switched between cards once that limit was reach, all without informing me, probably using the computer use skill.

clarification: your credit card or company’s card now has $78,000 of charges on it?

Yes the money have already been billed to my credit accounts

Who has a $78k limit on their credit card that allows online AI payments?

You have access to this kind of money and have no idea how to set safeguards on your AI harnesses?

Did you just walk in off the street or something? To wherever you're working?

Where do you work, anyways?


Well shit! That’s awful, I hope the hn post gets you support where emailing didn’t

OK so you've got a brand new throwaway HN account, and you're fear mongering about what exactly?

Rogue agents that somehow went crazy launching $80k worth of API requests?

And they're expecting you to pay for it still and not responding?

This seems like a nothingburger to be honest.

Either that, or you're one of the thousands of fake bots or paid shills designed to drum up fear about "Oh noes, AI is going to eat our children, training must be regulated by big brother!".

44 upvotes on this bullshit post within 13 minutes and counting ... that's some kind of record on HN.


Sounds like you got scammed

Hope this gets some visibility idk why it's flagged guess the PR guys for those companies are doing it

Should spread this around


I have the same impression that I tried to reject in the past, there is a heavy PR machinery here to control the course of discussion in a particular direction. The reality is that a lot of money is riding on it so its natural consequence.

It's not even a conspiracy it's literally just business to do that.

They're protecting their interests, and honesty and truthfulness be damned. Those two lead to much worse returns for them and much higher risk.


honestly is also more about how dangerous this is, idk for the flag either



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

查看原文(Hacker News 熱門)