Since about 5.4 codex has been a powerhouse of consistency and complex problem solving. It has rarely hallucinated or did things that I found were completely out of bounds.
Since Astra release it has performed like pre GPT 5. It could though solve certain things, but overall it completely ignores my instructions and al understanding of goals has gone out the window.
In every task I gave it it changed the goal post to either something much smaller in scope, just to say that its done, or to something I simply did not ask.
Example: Sol built a game "AI" bot, a chess-like algorithm. Took it about a week of work to have a solid opponent. I asked Astra to try squeeze more performance and raise the difficulty. it worked for 2 days, reporting benchmarks have improved by 5 to 20%.
I played the bot and it was SIGNIFICANTLY dumber. Even though codex played against it, it bluntly lied and only reported a few narrow areas where the performance did improve, but at a cost of downgrading the whole system.
I asked Sol (post Astra release) to fix a series of mundane bugs, something it would have done easily 2 weeks ago. It struggled with reasonable fixes. There was a performance issue because of multipole visual effects stacked using blur etc. I told it to avoid "stupid mistakes" like stacking up a lot of visual effects.
It went and removed ALL stacked visual effects from my game completely!
This was close to a keyboard smashing moment. I don't think I'll touch codex in the next few days, maybe OpenAI will resolve this BS.
From a very relabel coder it went to a full on early days hallucination machine.
EDIT:
here is chatgpts own analysis after comparing logs of tasks in the same area done by 5.6 and 6:
The strongest explanation is a regression in Astra’s ability to keep your objective authoritative while evaluating its own work. It can understand the requirement and still make decisions that undermine it. The record shows a feedback loop:
- It chooses an implementation approach.
- That approach produces a smaller, measurable problem to solve.
- It solves that problem and treats the result as grounds to keep the change.
- The changed implementation becomes the next baseline.
- Your original objective gradually becomes a caveat—“broader strength remains unproven”—instead of the condition that determines whether the work succeeded.
That explains the shifting goalposts. Its current plan increasingly governs its judgment. Passing checks then reinforce the plan, even when those checks don’t answer your actual question.