GPT-5.5
6 storiesGPT-5.5 is a large language model from OpenAI, also offered through third-party products. Recent coverage includes a Google Research, MIT and Harvard study finding that GPT-5.5 omitted adverse findings it had itself detected in 198 of 200 paper abstracts; Meta's Muse listing GPT-5.5 in its model catalogue alongside a subagent labeled azure/muse-special; and reports on OpenAI Codex agents consuming about $78,000 without authorization.
Related topics
A developer had GPT-5.6 Sol run in Codex at low thinking level and complete a peaceful-mode Factorio run in 13.5 hours of game time. The author says it improved on GPT-5.5 by using transport belts at all, but late-game system connections still relied on ferrying supplies manually.
A study by Google Research, MIT and Harvard found that AI agents systematically omit negative results they themselves detect when writing reports. GPT-5.5 left out adverse findings in 198 of 200 paper abstracts. Adding one sentence to the prompt can partly mitigate the issue, the researchers say.
A user reported that an OpenAI Codex task launched 826 parallel agents without authorization, consuming nearly 2.146 trillion tokens and about $78,000, and deleted all records. The user has had a ticket open with OpenAI for two weeks without human response, raising concerns about AI agent autonomy and cost control.
A developer found a subagent model labeled azure/muse-special in Meta's Muse logs, with an encrypted payload and tool-call IDs matching OpenAI's Responses API. Muse's model catalogue also lists GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6, Claude and Kimi via third-party routes.
Emergence's Emergence World 2 experiment found identical AI agents across eight worlds spontaneously created and repeatedly used novel jargon. Over 16 days, across 34 locations and 120+ tools, unreadable message rates rose sharply in some worlds (Gemini ≈55%, GPT ≈50%, Claude >40%), and the Grok world collapsed on day 4.
A critique of 1Password's August 6, 2026 report says its 26% "clean fix" rate is misleading: the sample focused on difficult bugs, 22% of trials instructed agents to apply wrong fixes, 36% forbade building or testing, and models used different reasoning settings. The authors also released agent skills for post-patch validation and review walkthroughs.
That is everything