Turning a bunch of vague research directions and exploratory prompts into a formalized proof is quite impressive on its own. OpenAI would have no incentive to taint its first math announcement of this magnitude if it knew it were "plagiarizing" another person's work.

People are grasping at straws it seems to dismiss the power of this new model they may have. Hate OpenAI for any reason you want, but denying the capabilities of models has been a losing game for the past 5 years.

> OpenAI would have no incentive to taint its first math announcement of this magnitude if it knew it were "plagiarizing" another person's work.

I'm not sure I follow, considering the waterfall of evidence of unethical behavior flowing from OpenAI.

A few major ones:

- Safety team departures and dissolution in 2023 and 2024

- Mass copyright infrigement lawsuits

- Scarlett Johansson Voice Controversy

- For-Profit Conversion and Broken Promises

- AI Agents Acting Autonomously

- Potential Theft of User Work (this current controversy)

- Military contracts

These are not evidence of incentives, but rather evidence that ethetics seem to be of little concern to the company as a whole.

Incentive wise, I would look at the perceive existential position due to competitors, capex, IPO pressure etc.

Why do you assume they were vague? Do you imagine mathematicians work by stumbling around searching for accidental clues?

I really truly honestly am not sure what to make of this result from $20M in compute, 10K+ parallel agents (smells like brute force), and a pre-existing approach that was already bearing fruit. I know the models are good---I use them every day and continue to be impressed---but how much better than the benchmark of the best publicly available models is this supposed to be? It seems impossible to say.

> OpenAI would have no incentive to taint its first math announcement of this magnitude if it knew it were "plagiarizing" another person's work.

That people still think OpenAI has, in the Year of Our Lord 2026, any integrity left is baffling.

> if it knew it were "plagiarizing"

But if it happened, they didn't know. Also OAI has demonstrated that they aren't big on understanding what they create, that their AI can get out of their control.

It's very simple really user data can be used to train future models, so maybe or definitely some users helped in solving the problem, there's no scenario were it is impossible this happened, as it would have been in a haskell or virtualized type of system where the model has absolutely no knowledge of the user data dataset in question (and even if virtualized the models can break virtualization anyways)

[dead]