{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigbqqpugutnnbinzpz66u4d7w5mwjy6dpa4rasv77jlqgjry4piee",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnvxjur5kdt2"
  },
  "path": "/t/gpt-5-2-and-gpt-5-3-codex-have-been-sunset-in-codex-with-chatgpt-subscriptions/1382273?page=7#post_135",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-10T04:45:58.000Z",
  "site": "https://community.openai.com",
  "textContent": "So asked gpt 5.5: What do you think about the fact that gtp codex 5.3 was removed and we are now expected to pay extra to use it through the API access ?\n\n6:42 AM\n\nHonestly? If that’s what happened for your account, I get why it feels bad.\n\nFor a coding workflow, the model is not just a “nice upgrade”; it becomes part of your muscle memory. You build a loop around its speed, reliability, and judgment. So if a model that worked well in the app disappears and the path becomes “pay extra through API,” that can feel less like a product change and more like the floor moving under your setup.\n\nMy practical take:\n\n  * It’s reasonable to be annoyed, especially if the change was abrupt or poorly explained.\n  * API access is not the same experience as having it integrated into Codex/chat. You lose convenience, state, UI flow, and sometimes the feeling of collaboration.\n  * If the replacement model is weaker for your actual coding tasks, that matters more than benchmark claims or naming.\n  * The least frustrating product version would be: keep the old model available, clearly label cost/limits, and let users choose.\n\n\n\nI can’t see your account’s model availability from here, so I can’t confirm the exact policy change. But as a user experience: removing a trusted coding model and pushing it behind a different paid access path is absolutely the kind of thing that would make people feel jerked around.",
  "title": "GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.3-Codex have been sunset in Codex with ChatGPT subscriptions"
}