Peter Woit on AI Research, Scientific Credit and Integrity

A sourced history of statements and actions associated with this topic.

Disputes over authorship, credit, research conduct and publication practices involving artificial intelligence and scientific work.

Scope: Covers attributable disagreements over contributions, publication pressure, collaboration and use of research material. Treats mathematical correctness, authorship conduct and data-access allegations as separate questions.

Condemned0Distinct events · No published events — Not selected; activate to add.Defended or excused0Distinct events · No published events — Not selected; activate to add.Challenged the characterization0Distinct events · No published events — Not selected; activate to add.Minimized0Distinct events · No published events — Not selected; activate to add.Mixed or conditional1Distinct events · September 9, 2026 — Not selected; activate to add.Explicitly stayed out0Distinct events · No published events — Not selected; activate to add.

Counts document individual events. They do not assign an overall position.

By category Timeline

Distinct documented events

Position history

1 event on this page. Dates: September 9, 2026

1 matching event. Dates: September 9, 2026

1 total published event. Dates: September 9, 2026

September 9, 2026Mixed or conditional
Addressed record
Woit argues AI-assisted mathematical announcements should disclose methods, prompts, training data and timing so priority and process can be examined.
“exactly how was this done?”
Speaker capacity
Signed author of Not Even Wrong
Editorial rationale
Concrete process demand without claiming independently to have established the disputed facts.
Peter Woit: A Modest Proposal (opens in a new tab)
Signed essay calls for detailed methods, prompt and training disclosure. It also discusses rumors; the dossier does not adopt those rumors as facts.

View context Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?