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

44 points by lorenzomassaro ↗ HN
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.

25 comments

[ 1577 ms ] story [ 489 ms ] thread
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

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

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.
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.
Or people see something that seems like a red flag and want to support it because fuck the obviously amoral AI companies?
This submission appears to be highly vote-manipulated (45 upvotes but only 7 "real" karma on OP's fresh account).
Can we stop with the attempted sabotage?
(comment deleted)
Why were you using a model that's two generations old? You weren't even using 5.6.
The user evidently had no spending protections enabled at any level. It makes no sense that none of the OpenAI or bank controls kicked in or even sent alert emails as they actually do send. Anyone with half a brain would know to not run AI without a hard cap on its expenses.
I see this as a problem of people losing grip on the trajectories as models get more capable. Two reasons: you either become more trusting of your agent, or you don't know what it's doing because the CLI is no good at presenting complex information.

Speaking of which, has anyone used a cost-visibility UI like AgentCost or Langfuse? (not affiliated, just curious)

I've had similar subagent explosion before. 437 claude code subagents running adversarial reviews on a tiny thing (in yolo mode). Nothing to stop it.

Loops a really a huge pain in the... And many of these subagents would run similar (if not identical) checks over and over. So I realized just setting a hard circuit breaker spending cap isn't enough. I've had some luck with some oss tools, things like work receipts, better traces/observability. But still had to build my own stack of rules to make the agents actually work with out bankrupting me.