OpenAI's math claims criticized for skipping peer review, inverting the proper process
JFPuget · x · 2026-10-09
Blogger JFPuget argues OpenAI should submit claimed mathematical results to recognized peer-reviewed venues before announcing them. The issue is process, not results: OpenAI did it backwards—claim first, review later. He notes the Clay Institute requires thorough peer review plus a two-year delay before recognizing millennium-problem solutions. A self-described happy Codex user, he objects to the hubris around AI achievements.
More from Models
- Same $0.10/$0.50 price, 40% different bills: GPT-6 Luna beats Haiku 5.5 in real billing test — aakashgupta · 2026-10-10
- GPU kernel bench leaks: DeepSeek v4.1 flash beats GLM-5.3 and Haiku 5.5 — teortaxesTex · 2026-10-10
- Step 5 Preview makes clean slides, Qwen goes report-style in Apple deck showdown — CodeByPoonam · 2026-10-10
- The key test: editing one number to see if each model's charts update correctly — CodeByPoonam · 2026-10-10
- Blogger benchmarks StepFun Preview vs Qwen 3.8 Max on Apple FY2025 analysis deck — CodeByPoonam · 2026-10-10
- User says Grok bot's hidden subagents and instant replies ruin other LLM experiences — rudrank · 2026-10-10