Andreas Thom challenges OpenAI's claim that de-identification resolves it
Andreas ThomMathematician describing his own experience and ethical concerns in a personal public post
Thom challenged OpenAI's explanation of research-related user data and requested evidence supporting its denials. Drawing on his own experience, he argued that de-identification would not eliminate the ethical issue if unpublished mathematical ideas were used to compete with their authors.
“De-identification may remove a name; it does not remove the intellectual content of a mathematical idea.”
Original text
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divide over whether the negotiations were appropriate, while raising a separate dispute about the treatment of unpublished user research.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 text
About this source
Thom describes his own interactions involving unpublished mathematical research and challenges the transparency of OpenAI's data-use explanations. His ethical concern is conditional on nonpublic user research having been used; this post does not establish that such use or theft occurred in the Buckmaster dispute. Thom is the author, not another mathematician who reposted the thread. The page displays September 9 at 06:10 without a timezone.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Thom posted in a discussion connected to Buckmaster's account and OpenAI's explanations concerning research and user data.
After the quotation
The post does not independently establish what data were used or whether misconduct occurred.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The full thread calls potential competitive use ethically indefensible and criticizes the current explanation as missing the moral issue. Factual uncertainty does not erase the direct ethical condemnation.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- OpenAI
Corrections to this statement
These notices document reporting corrections, classification changes, and topic-label updates.
Classification correction
Correction to: Statement by Andreas Thom
- Previous classification
- Challenges the characterization. He questions the sufficiency and transparency of OpenAI's account while presenting the ethical objection conditionally. This is adjacent firsthand context, not proof of theft or misconduct in the Buckmaster authorship dispute.
- Corrected classification
- Condemns. The full thread calls potential competitive use ethically indefensible and criticizes the current explanation as missing the moral issue. Factual uncertainty does not erase the direct ethical condemnation.
We corrected the editorial classification of Andreas Thom's response about OpenAI’s ethical explanation of de-identified research data. The full thread calls potential competitive use ethically indefensible and criticizes the current explanation as missing the moral issue. Factual uncertainty does not erase the direct ethical condemnation. This corrects our labeling, not a later change in the speaker's position.
This corrects an editorial classification.
Thom describes his own interactions involving unpublished mathematical research and challenges the transparency of OpenAI's data-use explanations. His ethical concern is conditional on nonpublic user research having been used; this post does not establish that such use or theft occurred in the Buckmaster dispute. Thom is the author, not another mathematician who reposted the thread. The page displays September 9 at 06:10 without a timezone.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)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
- Andreas Thom challenges OpenAI's claim that de-identification resolves it
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/343-thom-challenged-openai-s-explanation-of-research-related
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Andreas Thom challenges OpenAI's claim that de-identification resolves it". First published: 2026-09-10. Last updated: 2026-09-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/343-thom-challenged-openai-s-explanation-of-research-related