Can you do a subagent by just wiring it call your own CLI script?
Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
111–120 of 272 posts
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#112Earlier 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…
IMO the biggest argument against "sharing" your code with LLM providers is that your approach (on a high level) will be available to your competitors on the next model release assuming they ask the right questions. Not sure how much it matters, different orgs have different risk profiles.
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#113first they encrypt their prompts, next they'll develop their own slang and we'll need a translator just to debug our own codebase
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm unable to understand how much value can be in low-definability non deterministic prompts. It feels like the kept the right divinity spell into a chest.
> understand how much value can be in low-definability non deterministic prompts
When was the last time you used an LLM to evaluate how true those last part(s) still are?
I also love how you went from "I'm unable to understand" to "This is surely right", it's a good representation of the software ecosystem at large :)
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has the benefit of billions of devices in the wild that they control. Anthropic really doesn’t have distribution for local models, makes sense they’re not playing in that space.
Sure, lots of differences. Point stands, they're distinguishing themselves in that way at least .
Oh sure, full agreement. In fact given how mid Gemini has been in cloud, this may turn out to be critical strategy to avoid losing cloud to Anthropic / OpenAI / DeepSeek / whoever, and local to Apple (doesn’t seem likely now, but that’s what BlackBerry, Creative, Intel said).
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unable to understand how much value can be in low-definability non deterministic prompts. It feels like the kept the right divinity spell into a chest.
I don’t disagree with your divinity spell comparison but unfortunately there is a lot of value in the prompts because these spells are the “programming languages” of LLMs.
yeah i get it too, i'm just flabbergasted that this is today's market
it reminds me of the pre-vulkan game programming days.. drivers were black boxes, game developpers had to resort to magic tricks to do stuff, until everybody got fed up and wanted some logical ground to operate
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#117This 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"
It seems likely to me this was driven by the `ultra` mode in 5.6, which fans subagents to do work. This mode was previously only available in the web UI (what was previously known as pro?)
It seems possible they trained this by doing full RL rollouts of agents interacting with each other. They likely view these prompts somewhat the same as raw reasoning traces, they don't want people to train directly on them.
I am unsure if this has been confirmed, but there are some signs that the opaque "compaction blob" they return from their dedicated compaction endpoint might not be text at all, rather a latent space representation of the conversation. The fact that OpenAIs compaction seems to be much higher fidelity than a lot of other providers makes me inclined to believe this.
If this is true, it doesn't seem far fetched to infer that they might be applying similar techniques to prompting subagents.
I would be curious to see if this way of spawning subagents (encrypted blob) is used when subagents of a different model type is spawned.
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume OP interpreted it as encryption that hides the prompts from OpenAI rather than OpenAI hiding information from users.
ooooooof yeah totally misinterpreted it lmao
Given what we know about the company, I find it crazy anyone would misinterpret along those lines lol.
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#119Yeah nope. Full transparency only with my data.
Re: Codex starts encrypting sub-agent prompts
#120[flagged]