71–80 of 272 posts
What's the idea here? Why does this seem important to OpenAI?
Oh and you can't even use local models or other providers for the sub-agents. You're locked-in.
I guess this implies that non-Codex harnesses get a little bit worse? In wondering what's so special about their subagents system that they feel the need to hide these messages...
Sol and Terra seems specifically post-trained to handle multi-agent orchestration, I'm guessing OpenAI feels like the trained data of when to do the spawning and what context to include for the new sub-agent is the magic in their new models, so that's what they're aiming to preserve. But, this is all a guess of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the reason I think. These black markets not only pool and resell subs, but also store data and sell to whoever is training. Encryption is useful to at least stop the latter. Ultimately same purpose as a\ ‘s trick exposed earlier, but a much nicer implementation.
> but also store data and sell to whoever is training I see this as an argument against using them/Chinese models all the time, but I don't get it. I totally understand wanting to keep your data private if you're using an LLM for personal chats. But coding? I'm not working for the military, I'd gladly donate my codebase to Chinese labs if that means they can keep releasing 6-months-behind level models for 100x cheape…
This title is easy to misinterpret. If I understand correctly: Codex now encrypts sub-agent prompts and hides those prompts from the user. edit: originally was "Codex starts encrypting prompts, uses cyphertext for inference instead"
We had this discussion a few months ago where we talked about allowing people to choose an AI provider and provide their API key, thinking about enterprises with "preferred" (read: mandated) AI suppliers. We also wanted to offer the kind of very simple pricing that this is one way of enabling. But we realised pretty quickly that this would/could lead to leaking our back end prompts to customers and, although those prompts are only a part of the value add, if you could build a detailed trace of them then you'd be able to relatively easily reverse engineer a lot of what we're doing.
So we quickly dropped that idea.
This title is easy to misinterpret. If I understand correctly: Codex now encrypts sub-agent prompts and hides those prompts from the user. edit: originally was "Codex starts encrypting prompts, uses cyphertext for inference instead"
I imagine this will be because a decent chunk of the IP in Codex is probably within its prompts, how they're built, and how they're sequenced and orchestrated, rather than in the codebase per se. We had this discussion a few months ago where we talked about allowing people to choose an AI provider and provide their API key, thinking about enterprises with "preferred" (read: mandated) AI suppliers. We also wanted to o…
a lot of expertise of certain domains' workflows is needed to make it functional within that domain. some of this can be yielded via prompting too etc so its also baoance of how much to prompt it vs. how much of it you wanna let it reason over itself. (if you tell it too much i lock it into a path and if you tell too little it will give incomplete results )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but also store data and sell to whoever is training I see this as an argument against using them/Chinese models all the time, but I don't get it. I totally understand wanting to keep your data private if you're using an LLM for personal chats. But coding? I'm not working for the military, I'd gladly donate my codebase to Chinese labs if that means they can keep releasing 6-months-behind level models for 100x cheape…
When you work on proprietary code with a lot of trade secrets contained in it, on a codebase that did cost millions of dollars of man-hours to build and that holds the company's IP, you tend to be very careful where you're sending that to.
Source: I work on such code. We don't allow devs to use (cloud-based) LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would change "Codex starts encrypting prompts, uses ciphertext for inference instead" to just "Codex starts encrypting prompts" That is enough. Maybe you could say sub agent prompts. The article can say the rest.
Not everything is encrypted though, session data (even from the sub-agent) remains unencrypted, only select things like the prompt the (main) agent sends the sub-agent is encrypted, rest of communication between the two seems still to be plain-text. Regardless, I've updated the title from "Codex starts encrypting prompts, uses ciphertext for inference instead" to "Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts", hope this…
This title is easy to misinterpret. If I understand correctly: Codex now encrypts sub-agent prompts and hides those prompts from the user. edit: originally was "Codex starts encrypting prompts, uses cyphertext for inference instead"
I imagine this will be because a decent chunk of the IP in Codex is probably within its prompts, how they're built, and how they're sequenced and orchestrated, rather than in the codebase per se. We had this discussion a few months ago where we talked about allowing people to choose an AI provider and provide their API key, thinking about enterprises with "preferred" (read: mandated) AI suppliers. We also wanted to o…