Samuel Davenport questions OpenAI's contradictory math credit claims
Samuel DavenportPersonal public response to Bubeck
Questions how the company reconciles claiming the result with offering academic accolades to the other researchers.
Responding to
Bubeck says the disputed authorship proposal concerned a rewrite of OpenAI's proof, not removing Alpöge from his own work.
“That is clearly contradictory.”
Original post
Original post
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divide over whether the negotiations were appropriate, while raising a separate dispute about the treatment of unpublished user research.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
Original post
About this source
Questions why a company would claim the result while offering academic accolades to the other researchers.
Original post
About this source
Later, more categorical post, recorded to distinguish it from Davenport's 17:55 UTC response. His allegations about data use and scientific credit remain attributed allegations, not established findings.
Before the quotation
Responds to the proposed distribution of credit.
After the quotation
This records Davenport's 17:55 UTC response. At 18:12 UTC he separately alleged that OpenAI trained on the researchers' data and took their credit; those allegations are not established by this post.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Challenges the coherence of the credit explanation, not the mathematical proof.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- OpenAI
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
- Samuel Davenport questions OpenAI's contradictory math credit claims
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/297-questions-how-the-company-reconciles-claiming-the-result
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Samuel Davenport questions OpenAI's contradictory math credit claims". First published: 2026-09-10. Last updated: 2026-09-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/297-questions-how-the-company-reconciles-claiming-the-result