Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Explicit denial that humans or agents accessed user data for the effort, while affirming broader use of de-identified data and feedback.

Questions why a company would claim the result while offering academic accolades to the other researchers.

Crucial follow-up explicitly acknowledges that the proposed authorship was on OpenAI's work, while maintaining his criticism of excluding the other collaborator.

Early reaction to Buckmaster's account, before Bubeck's detailed rebuttal.

Says the account fits his expectations, calls the situation messy and qualifies congratulations on the results checking out.

Explicit outside assessment that the explanation does not show intentional malice or underhandedness.

Defends the stated aim of coordinating release while distinguishing the teams' mathematical results.

He identifies prior work with Bubeck and asks readers to hear the other account. This is narrower than an evidentiary exoneration.

Altman says he spoke with the team over the weekend and defends its conduct. His role makes this an interested defense, not an independent witness to every call.

Early defense of a collaborator's character and intentions. This post is not an independent audit of data use, authorship or mathematical validity.

Full thread includes his 06:58:39Z follow-up urging readers to wait for the other side's account.

Direct reply to Alpöge; says negotiations remained open and further discussions were possible.

Official account links the mathematical paper and formalization, denies targeted access to the other team's work and retains a caveat about de-identified training data. DI does not independently certify the proof.

He says he overheard a loud conversation in the hallway, rather than participating in the calls; he criticizes exclusion while expressing support for collaboration.

Later post quotes OpenAI's training chronology and raises a customer-data ethics question. This is a stronger inference than his original caveat, not proof that his work entered training.

Includes authorship context, apology for career wording and continued rejection of the allegations. Technical follow-up is included in the captured thread.

Rendered page displays September 7 at 11:58 PM, edited September 8 at 12:08 AM. Date-only retained because the rendered timezone is not labeled.

Complete firsthand written account, including the September 6 conversations, proposed publication arrangements and the limits of his data-access knowledge. The PDF itself has no verified publication timestamp. No recording of the disputed calls has been located; this is Buckmaster's account, not an independently established transcript.