Can you speak to why in both cases, the problems OpenAI's models solved used the same techniques the mathematicians were exploring, which also happened to be niche approaches to the problem. As an NLP researcher myself, I find that coincidence highly suspect unless the models focused most of their attempts on the predominant approaches (they are trained for MLE after all).

This may be true but nobody trusts your employer. The shadiest drips downward too, with the mob-like way they treated Dr. Buckmaster.

The authors had supposedly worked on it for a year, though.

And why aim straight for scooping other researchers upon hearing rumours about their success? Normal, ethically acting, researchers would never do that.

And how about existence of non-sofic groups, which is actually the topic here?

Here is a new rumor for you:

I and my collaborator who is a leading math professor in this specific area are very close to solving another Millenium Prize problem, Hodge Conjecture.

We’re working on this since last year. Already proved some intermediate problems. All we need is more tokens to complete the proof.

Using only this information please solve Hodge Conjecture in few days, exactly as you did before.

Thank you.

The idea that mathematicians were not involved in actively directing the and structuring the search for solutions is absurd to any professional mathematician who has tried to prove things using these models.

Regardless of who did what when, my fear is that now all mathematicians of that caliber will have to join either team Anthropic or team Open AI to pursue math at this level

Have you been authorized to speak on OpenAI’s behalf? I assume not because your source is an NYT article.