More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math • Hacker News Board

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#2

Post by Legend2440 » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:43 AM UTC

This is a really weak claim. The evidence they offer is just "someone somewhere says they had a discussion with AI about the topic at some point".

They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#3

Post by drivebyhooting » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:43 AM UTC

If we put aside the idea of credit for a moment, it sounds like human/AI collaboration is indeed super charging discovery.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#4

Post by 1337h4xx » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:46 AM UTC

TL/DR: Mathematician opted out of training on 29-JUN and asked OpenAI whether they trained on his data and was told that it "did not happen" but it clearly did.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#5

Post by rnijveld » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 4:51 AM UTC

Legend2440 wrote: post #2

This is a really weak claim. The evidence they offer is just "someone somewhere says they had a discussion with AI about the topic at some point". They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.

I would say there is a significant difference between AI discovering this completely on its own versus AI creating the finishing connecting part by connecting relevant data. Maybe this claim is too strong, but if part of it is true then the claims that OpenAI have made would be too strong as well.

To me it would feel more like how LLMs seem to work for me personally: incapable of unique work, but very capable of capturing large amounts of data and connecting the dots.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#6

Post by Grimblewald » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 5:24 AM UTC

people seem to miss tge point of this. The problem isn't about credit, its about portraying these models as more competant than they really are. It fuels idiotic statements like jensen huangs recent "agi achieved" statement, which fuels an already dangerous financial fire.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#7

Post by galkk » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 5:26 AM UTC

I want bunch of lawsuits, because the way things are described now produces perverse initiatives like try to discuss every possible idea that comes to mind with llm and if any of it works later claim the llm stole it.

I would like to see chat logs etc and understand how much of a progress was done by human.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#8

Post by ramblerman » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 5:46 AM UTC

Grimblewald wrote: post #6

people seem to miss tge point of this. The problem isn't about credit, its about portraying these models as more competant than they really are. It fuels idiotic statements like jensen huangs recent "agi achieved" statement, which fuels an already dangerous financial fire.

As per the post, this mathematician has been working on this problem for 20 years. So either he was "just" about to breakthrough and this is a big coincidence, or Astra was able to push through the remaining block of 5-10-20-never years it might have taken.

That's still a pretty big marker of competence in my eyes.

The point of controversy seems to be who gets credit

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#9

Post by viccis » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

Some mathematicians I know who've been following this have realized that they'd all gotten some emails from people they now know to be affiliated with OpenAI/Anthropic asking questions about their research in a way that seemed like scooping attempts.

Also, a lot of my mathematicians buddies have reported students basically asking if it's worth ever doing grad school for pure math, and even very motivated students are looking for other options now. It's not because they aren't passionate about it, it's that they don't want to work for another half decade or more just to have to start their careers all over.

All of this so that OpenAI and Anthropic can get into math result dick measuring to gas up their IPOs. Sickening.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#10

Post by mdspan » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 6:12 AM UTC

viccis wrote: post #9

Some mathematicians I know who've been following this have realized that they'd all gotten some emails from people they now know to be affiliated with OpenAI/Anthropic asking questions about their research in a way that seemed like scooping attempts. Also, a lot of my mathematicians buddies have reported students basically asking if it's worth ever doing grad school for pure math, and even very motivated students are…

Curious, what other options are prospective pure math grad students considering?