OpenAI says “no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system”
OpenAIStatement by an OpenAI spokesperson to Nature
An OpenAI spokesperson told Nature that no user inputs after July 3 could have influenced the system, and said the company began work on the problem on September 1 and had not seen the mathematicians’ work until they released it publicly.
“After investigating, we can say with full confidence that no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system in any way.”
Reporting
Where this statement fits
Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?
Tristan Buckmaster describes pressure over authorship and publication during discussions about competing AI-assisted mathematics results. Sébastien Bubeck disputes that characterization and says the proposed authorship concerned OpenAI's own proof. His apology for career-related wording does not settle the disagreement. Researchers and commentators divide over whether the negotiations were appropriate, while raising a separate dispute about the treatment of unpublished user research.
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Carries OpenAI’s most specific denial to date, naming a hard July 3 data cutoff and a September 1 start date. It also reports Buckmaster’s disclosure that he held three separate ChatGPT accounts and had opted out of training on only two of them, and Andreas Thom’s account that he had not opted out until late June. The same piece notes OpenAI “did not provide a direct response” on whether its models used those sessions.
Before the quotation
Given to Nature for its September 17 report on the credit dispute. It is a more specific formulation than OpenAI’s earlier public statements, naming a hard July 3 cutoff and a September 1 start date.
After the quotation
The same report records Buckmaster's disclosure that he held three separate ChatGPT accounts and had opted out of training on only two of them, and Andreas Thom's account that he had not opted out until late June. The Washington Post reported a similar formulation on September 13, attributed to spokesperson Laurance Fauconnet.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
On OpenAI disputes the factual premise on which the credit allegation rests, asserting a hard data cutoff that would place the mathematicians’ interactions outside the training window and a start date after which it says it saw none of their work. This is a challenge to the characterization of what happened rather than a defence of pressure said to have occurred. Note that the same report records OpenAI “did not provide a direct response” on whether its models used Andreas Thom’s earlier sessions, so the denial is specific rather than comprehensive.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Tristan Buckmaster, Levent Alpöge
More from this case
Read the full caseAGMAI calls OpenAI's release a first step, not an endorsement
Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
“AGMAI’s advisory role should not be interpreted as a judgment of the impact of these results or an endorsement of the process by which OpenAI obtained them.”Read statement
OpenAI describes steps to improve mathematical disclosures
OpenAI
“We will continue to act on feedback from the community and update our standards for future disclosures of major scientific advancements.”Read statement
AGMAI opposes using mathematical releases as marketing
Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
“We strongly recommend that AI labs refrain from treating the release of mathematical results as marketing vehicles to promote their models”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- OpenAI says “no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system”
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/1069-an-openai-spokesperson-told-nature-that-no-user
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "OpenAI says “no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system”". First published: 2026-09-18. Last updated: 2026-09-26. https://disputeindex.com/events/1069-an-openai-spokesperson-told-nature-that-no-user