Thomas Wolf 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.

Condemned1Distinct events · September 8, 2026 — 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 conditional0Distinct events · No published events — 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 8, 2026

1 matching event. Dates: September 8, 2026

1 total published event. Dates: September 8, 2026

September 8, 2026Condemned
Addressed record
OpenAI improperly pressured the researchers over authorship and publication of the mathematical results.
“marketing games hurtful for the real scientific community”
Speaker capacity
Personal public response
Editorial rationale
Condemnation of the reported conduct, qualified by an explicit request to hear the other account.
Thomas Wolf criticizes the reported handling of researchers and asks to hear both sides (opens in a new tab)
Full thread includes his 06:58:39Z follow-up urging readers to wait for the other side's account.

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