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

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.

52 points | by lorenzomassaro 54 minutes ago

6 comments

  • numbsafari 48 minutes ago
    Does openAI not support spending caps on your billing account?
    • lorenzomassaro 41 minutes ago
      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.
  • QuadmasterXLII 46 minutes ago
    clarification: your credit card or company’s card now has $78,000 of charges on it?
    • lorenzomassaro 45 minutes ago
      Yes the money have already been billed to my credit accounts
      • johnnyApplePRNG 39 minutes ago
        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?

        • lorenzomassaro 31 minutes ago
          Actually this was a company CC with a limit is 50 K \ month, which is kind of normal to run the server for an AI company, and the money were taken across 20 days inJuly and August. By the way I am the CTO of the company in question which is Eternal Tech (see detwin.ai)
      • QuadmasterXLII 42 minutes ago
        Well shit! That’s awful, I hope the hn post gets you support where emailing didn’t
  • minimaxir 35 minutes ago
    This submission appears to be highly vote-manipulated (45 upvotes but only 7 "real" karma on OP's fresh account).
    • lorenzomassaro 28 minutes ago
      I created the account 2 hour ago because I am trying to let people know. I provided my name, and all details in the article including the case ID that was opened.
    • thoughtbefore 13 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • Madmallard 49 minutes ago
    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

    • sandeepkd 44 minutes ago
      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.
      • Madmallard 39 minutes ago
        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.

        • sandeepkd 16 minutes ago
          Yes its part of business, lobbying is legal for those reasons. However IMO discrediting some one else is a risky legal move. I used to appreciate the HN mods jumping in discussions at times for the reputation of this community, lately that part seems to be missing too.
    • lorenzomassaro 47 minutes ago
      honestly is also more about how dangerous this is, idk for the flag either
  • johnnyApplePRNG 41 minutes ago
    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.

    • lorenzomassaro 35 minutes ago
      My name is Lorenzo Massaro and I actually am the CTO of Eternal Tech, an AI company out of Italy building the product detwin.ai I have posted here to try to reach OpenAI before seeking legal advise from a USA lawyer to follow my case. And yes, I provided above the ticket number I opened on the OpenAI support as well.
      • ganoushoreilly 7 minutes ago
        If you're building an AI company i'm not to impressed with your understanding of the technology and risks. This sounds like your error not theirs.