No, it's the exact opposite, actually. They were sharing them early on advice of mathematicians -- they were criticized for being opaque for too long with previous announcements. OpenAI is in ~bad faith, but this isn't a sound criticism.

Also you are deeply confused about what accelerationism is, I believe. Sorry.

▲

mrpopo 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> on advice of mathematicians

Whom? Did they create their own board of mathematicians that would agree with them? See below Terence Tao's blog, sharing a statement from the Association for Human Mathematics.

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/10/07/ahm-statement-on-o...

▲

flowerthoughts 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Who am I to dump on Terence Tao, but

> Mathematicians have a particular vision of progress that is informed by history and field-specific considerations.

really sounds like something a side-quest association would produce in a panic response to someone trying something different. It's just an _ad hominem_ and gatekeeping argument.

	▲	thereitgoes456 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Tao didn’t write that and isn’t part of the group that did, he’s just reposting their letter.

▲

bbor 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry, I was unclear: they do indeed have their own board of mathematicians, but I was more getting at their stated reasoning matching with general mathematical sentiment (AFAICT), not permission from a particular group. The problem that that open letter is raising is the practice of setting an internal model on these kinds of problems in the first place, not the decision to release them earlier.

Also jeez just noticed their name... that's unfortunate. I guess mathematicians don't make great rhetoricians/politicians/marketers! Someone get a sophist or two over there to help them out STAT