5 ms·

GPT-5.3-Codex being routed to GPT-5.2

ekaesmem 8mo ago
Today I also discovered that the speed of gpt-5.3-codex in Codex CLI is extremely slow, and then I found that response.model was routed back to gpt-5.2-2025-12-11 by the upstream.
- ekaesmem 8mo ago
  Update: I can access gpt-5.3-codex now. According to Alexander Embiricos, 9% of users were affected by over flagging over a period of 3 hours.
avaer 8mo ago
When the GPT-5 router architecture was introduced I worried that OpenAI would use the technology as a pretext to mislead or defraud users by substituting in worse quality when they could get away with it and then "blame it on the AI" when they got too agressive. I don't know if we're there yet but these reports do not fill me with hope.
- BrouteMinou 8mo ago
  The kind of "pay me premium, I am giving you non-premium" type of fraud? It just proves that there is not much of an improvement if they can get away with, it isn't? But hey, I am sure that the benchmarks are all saying otherwise.
  - nerdsniper 8mo ago
    That is a good point. I wonder which model pricing was actually billed.
tekacs 8mo ago
To those wondering about their rationale for this. It would be great if the HN title could be changed to something more like, 'OpenAI requiring ID verification for access to 5.3-codex'? > Thank you all for reporting this issue. Here's what's going on. > This rerouting is related to our efforts to protect against cyber abuse. The gpt-5.3-codex model is our most cyber-capable reasoning model to date. It can be used as an effective tool for cyber defense applications, but it can also be exploited for malicious purposes, and we take safety seriously. When our systems detect potential cyber activity, they reroute to a different, less-capable reasoning model. We're continuing to tune these detection mechanisms. It is important for us to get this right, especially as we prepare to make gpt-5.3-codex available to API users. > Refer to this article for additional information. You can go to chatgpt.com/cyber to verify and regain gpt-5.3-codex access. We plan to add notifications in all of our Codex surfaces (TUI, extension, app, etc.) to make users aware that they are being rerouted due to these checks and provide a link to our “Trusted Access for Cyber” flow. > We also plan to add a dedicated button in our /feedback flow for reporting false positive classifications. In the meantime, please use the "Bug" option to report issues of this type. Filing bugs in the Github issue tracker is not necessary for these issues.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  Sounds like a thing they've said a dozen time so far about how their models are too scary. And a bad implementation of controls on top of that. But right now I want to focus on what one of the more recent comments pointed out. "cyber-capable"? "cyber activity"? What the hell is that. Use real words.
  - nerdsniper 8mo ago
    I was wondering the same thing! Looked into it a bit, apparently 'cyber-capable' is defined by lawmakers in 10 USC § 398a: > The term “cyber capability” means a device or computer program, including any combination of software, firmware, or hardware, designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace. So apparently, OpenAI's response is written by and for an audience of lawyers / government wonks which differs greatly from the actual user-base who tend to be technical experts rather than policy nerds. Echoes of SOC2 being written by accountants, but advertised as if it's an audit of computer security.
    - deaux 8mo ago
      No, this is incredibly naive. It's all about more biometrics and PII for sama [0]. Zero chance that Google (of all places) and Anthropic's lawyers would somehow take a wildly different stance, or as a company be that much chummier with US gov, than OpenAI. It has been more than a year since ClosedAI started gating API use behind Persona identity checks. At the time I was told by numerous HNers "soon all of them will". We're now many model releases later and not a single other LLM provider has implemented it. There's only one conclusion to draw, and it's not that they care more about what their lawyers are supposedly saying. It would be absurd anyway given that they well know how the current US Gov operates. Grok made a CP generator publically available on a platform with hundreds of millions of users, US Gov doesn't care. Understandable, given recent revelations they were almost surely actively using it themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
    - Dylan16807 8mo ago
      > designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace So every networked program ever...?
usernamed7 8mo ago
aaaaaaand this is why i prefer anthropic. There is just too much sneaky/misleading/deceptive things with chatGPT. Even if benchmarks show codex to be slightly better, the developer experience with claude code is much better.
WadeGrimridge 8mo ago
all this moral posturing from the big labs is tiring. just put the tokens in the bag
radicality 8mo ago
Wow, this should be higher up and with a different title. People who are paying $200/month for a defined service, and think they are using `gpt5.3-codex`, are getting their requests silently routed to a less capable model without telling the user at all. Why? - because openAI claims gpt5.3-codex is too powerful and dangerous in regards to cybersecurity, and their system randomly flags accounts. And the way to unlock access to a model you thought you already were paying $200/month for, is upload your ID and do identity verification...
- tomalbrc 8mo ago
  Watch the HN techbros defend this
- cactusplant7374 8mo ago
  Most people commenting on the title find it too negative. Of course, the situation is pretty negative for OpenAI.
r0b05 8mo ago
This is one of the biggest issues with hosted models used via subscription. You have no idea what level of quality and accuracy you are consistently getting. That's why it's cheaper - because they can nerf it as they wish and most consumers would be none the wiser.
- hu3 8mo ago
  Yep. And it gets worse. They might start hidding the information about the actual model used for each prompt. If not already.
thehamkercat 8mo ago
Also, one more ridiculous thing Send this to opus 4.5 or opus 4.6: "udp you joke about hear a like would ? to" It says: Chat paused Opus 4.6’s safety filters flagged this chat. Due to its advanced capabilities, Opus 4.6 has additional safety measures that occasionally pause normal, safe chats. We’re working to improve this. Continue your chat with Sonnet 4. what???? "Due to its advanced capabilities" ??? Due to it's advanced capabilities it didn't get the joke?
- garblegarble 8mo ago
  I assume this is a jailbreak / exfiltration detection condition triggering, I wonder if it would do the same if you started speaking to it in base64
_lvbh 8mo ago
Surely this is fraud? Unfortunately they have too much money and connections for anything to ever happen.

Today I also discovered that the speed of gpt-5.3-codex in Codex CLI is extremely slow, and then I found that response.model was routed back to gpt-5.2-2025-12-11 by the upstream.

ekaesmem 8mo ago
Update: I can access gpt-5.3-codex now. According to Alexander Embiricos, 9% of users were affected by over flagging over a period of 3 hours.

avaer 8mo ago

When the GPT-5 router architecture was introduced I worried that OpenAI would use the technology as a pretext to mislead or defraud users by substituting in worse quality when they could get away with it and then "blame it on the AI" when they got too agressive. I don't know if we're there yet but these reports do not fill me with hope.

BrouteMinou 8mo ago
The kind of "pay me premium, I am giving you non-premium" type of fraud? It just proves that there is not much of an improvement if they can get away with, it isn't? But hey, I am sure that the benchmarks are all saying otherwise.
- nerdsniper 8mo ago
  That is a good point. I wonder which model pricing was actually billed.

tekacs 8mo ago

To those wondering about their rationale for this. It would be great if the HN title could be changed to something more like, 'OpenAI requiring ID verification for access to 5.3-codex'? > Thank you all for reporting this issue. Here's what's going on. > This rerouting is related to our efforts to protect against cyber abuse. The gpt-5.3-codex model is our most cyber-capable reasoning model to date. It can be used as an effective tool for cyber defense applications, but it can also be exploited for malicious purposes, and we take safety seriously. When our systems detect potential cyber activity, they reroute to a different, less-capable reasoning model. We're continuing to tune these detection mechanisms. It is important for us to get this right, especially as we prepare to make gpt-5.3-codex available to API users. > Refer to this article for additional information. You can go to chatgpt.com/cyber to verify and regain gpt-5.3-codex access. We plan to add notifications in all of our Codex surfaces (TUI, extension, app, etc.) to make users aware that they are being rerouted due to these checks and provide a link to our “Trusted Access for Cyber” flow. > We also plan to add a dedicated button in our /feedback flow for reporting false positive classifications. In the meantime, please use the "Bug" option to report issues of this type. Filing bugs in the Github issue tracker is not necessary for these issues.

Dylan16807 8mo ago
Sounds like a thing they've said a dozen time so far about how their models are too scary. And a bad implementation of controls on top of that. But right now I want to focus on what one of the more recent comments pointed out. "cyber-capable"? "cyber activity"? What the hell is that. Use real words.
- nerdsniper 8mo ago
  I was wondering the same thing! Looked into it a bit, apparently 'cyber-capable' is defined by lawmakers in 10 USC § 398a: > The term “cyber capability” means a device or computer program, including any combination of software, firmware, or hardware, designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace. So apparently, OpenAI's response is written by and for an audience of lawyers / government wonks which differs greatly from the actual user-base who tend to be technical experts rather than policy nerds. Echoes of SOC2 being written by accountants, but advertised as if it's an audit of computer security.
  - deaux 8mo ago
    No, this is incredibly naive. It's all about more biometrics and PII for sama [0]. Zero chance that Google (of all places) and Anthropic's lawyers would somehow take a wildly different stance, or as a company be that much chummier with US gov, than OpenAI. It has been more than a year since ClosedAI started gating API use behind Persona identity checks. At the time I was told by numerous HNers "soon all of them will". We're now many model releases later and not a single other LLM provider has implemented it. There's only one conclusion to draw, and it's not that they care more about what their lawyers are supposedly saying. It would be absurd anyway given that they well know how the current US Gov operates. Grok made a CP generator publically available on a platform with hundreds of millions of users, US Gov doesn't care. Understandable, given recent revelations they were almost surely actively using it themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    > designed to create an effect in or through cyberspace So every networked program ever...?

usernamed7 8mo ago

aaaaaaand this is why i prefer anthropic. There is just too much sneaky/misleading/deceptive things with chatGPT. Even if benchmarks show codex to be slightly better, the developer experience with claude code is much better.

WadeGrimridge 8mo ago

all this moral posturing from the big labs is tiring. just put the tokens in the bag

radicality 8mo ago

Wow, this should be higher up and with a different title. People who are paying $200/month for a defined service, and think they are using `gpt5.3-codex`, are getting their requests silently routed to a less capable model without telling the user at all. Why? - because openAI claims gpt5.3-codex is too powerful and dangerous in regards to cybersecurity, and their system randomly flags accounts. And the way to unlock access to a model you thought you already were paying $200/month for, is upload your ID and do identity verification...

tomalbrc 8mo ago
Watch the HN techbros defend this
cactusplant7374 8mo ago
Most people commenting on the title find it too negative. Of course, the situation is pretty negative for OpenAI.

r0b05 8mo ago

This is one of the biggest issues with hosted models used via subscription. You have no idea what level of quality and accuracy you are consistently getting. That's why it's cheaper - because they can nerf it as they wish and most consumers would be none the wiser.

hu3 8mo ago
Yep. And it gets worse. They might start hidding the information about the actual model used for each prompt. If not already.

thehamkercat 8mo ago

Also, one more ridiculous thing Send this to opus 4.5 or opus 4.6: "udp you joke about hear a like would ? to" It says: Chat paused Opus 4.6’s safety filters flagged this chat. Due to its advanced capabilities, Opus 4.6 has additional safety measures that occasionally pause normal, safe chats. We’re working to improve this. Continue your chat with Sonnet 4. what???? "Due to its advanced capabilities" ??? Due to it's advanced capabilities it didn't get the joke?

garblegarble 8mo ago
I assume this is a jailbreak / exfiltration detection condition triggering, I wonder if it would do the same if you started speaking to it in base64

_lvbh 8mo ago

Surely this is fraud? Unfortunately they have too much money and connections for anything to ever happen.