The paper has all those prominent institutions who acknowledge the contribution so realistically, why would you be skeptical ?
Their point is, would you be able to prompt your way to this result? No. Already trained physicists working at world-leading institutions could. So what progress have we really made here?
they probably also acknowledge pytorch, numpy, R ... but we don't attribute those tools as the agent who did the work.
I know we've been primed by sci-fi movies and comic books, but like pytorch, gpt-5.2 is just a piece of software running on a computer instrumented by humans.