The author of this paper has also apparently published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. yeah idk if they should be trusted as an authority on this.
Crank author at a crank “institution” - I can’t assess whether the OpenAI paper is accurate but I highly doubt this is going to be the paper to disprove it.
University of Kansas is not a crank institution. So she directs a hybrid thinktank that's experience not anything crazy. Other physicists are citing her work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 She's no hack.
What makes you say that? Not dunking, I skimmed it (I’m in no way at this level) and didn’t see anything outright Claud-y.
This immediately struck me as Claud-y: > The gap has two independent consequences, each sufficient to invalidate the claimed disproof. The first is structural. Then the classic coding agents negation of earlier evidence, instaed of just updating to use new references, they mention that they changed old to new: > The publicly released monolithic file ConnesRigidity.lean (37,000+ lines) does not use the names CocycleEx…
She says she used AI to summarize some of her arguments and it checked over most of her arguments and set them in LATex. Who cares. This is not a valid criticism of a paper these days considering that the paper she is taking on is entirely written by an Autonomous AI. She says she's proving humans armed with AI are superior to AI.
So this is the level of science discourse now? AI really broke people's minds. If it's true or not, it will be eventually proved or not. Name calling really is the best you all can do?
OpenAI should have submitted their proofs to peer review. The fact they did not do that and publish in a journal shows weakness / disbelief in their own proofs and disrespect for the mathematical and scientific process.
Maybe there's an error, but much of this write-up reads like nonsense to me. The assertion that a semidirect product with an abelian factor must admit that factor in its center is absolutely false. This is actually acknowledged later in this article, but is handwaved away in incomprehensible fashion.
There is a reductio that covers both the OpenAI and AnthropicAI counterexamples. If you can't follow, re-read Philpapers.org/rec/NIEWTC
Crank author at a crank “institution” - I can’t assess whether the OpenAI paper is accurate but I highly doubt this is going to be the paper to disprove it.
University of Kansas is not a crank institution. So she directs a hybrid thinktank that's experience not anything crazy. Other physicists are citing her work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 She's no hack.
Is this published in a serious peer review journal? The Arxiv has a very los publishing barrier.