Mathematicians want proof OpenAI didn’t use their work  | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyNotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.NotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchLightSystemDarkTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.Mathematicians want proof OpenAI didn’t use their work NotificationsNotificationsComments DrawerNotificationsCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...AICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AINewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceMathematicians want proof OpenAI didn’t use their work Another mathematician accused the company of ‘dishonesty’ after several big breakthroughs. Another mathematician accused the company of ‘dishonesty’ after several big breakthroughs. by Robert HartCloseRobert HartAI ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Robert HartSep 10, 2026, 11:00 AM UTCLinkShareGiftImage: The VergeRobert HartCloseRobert HartPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Robert Hart is a London-based reporter at The Verge covering all things AI and a Senior Tarbell Fellow. Previously, he wrote about health, science and tech for Forbes.Another researcher is challenging OpenAI about the data driving its increasingly impressive array of mathematical discoveries. Just days after a bitter row erupted over whether the company’s models benefited from unpublished work, a second mathematician has come forward accusing the AI giant of unethical and “dishonest” behavior and a lack of transparency about the origins of its training data.In a series of posts on Mastodon, mathematician Andreas Thom raised concerns that interactions he and his colleagues had had with the ChatGPT chatbot before OpenAI’s triumphant announcement may have contributed to its success in the field. One of the 10 results OpenAI announced with great fanfare last month involved Thom’s area of expertise, so-called non-sofic groups, and OpenAI acknowledged that their result built heavily on previous work by Thom and fellow mathematician Gábor Kun.Thom said he began reflecting on his own interactions with OpenAI after Tristan Buckmaster, a mathematics professor at New York University, publicly questioned whether the company’s AI models had benefited from his use of OpenAI’s Codex. After OpenAI announced its non-sofic groups result, it was widely criticized in mathematical circles for failing to acknowledge recent contributions from Thom and Kun and the company quietly amended its writeup. Non-sofic groups are, roughly speaking, infinite mathematical structures that cannot be approximated by finite ones.Thom said he was also struck by “OpenAI’s detailed command of our techniques,” which he said were neither the most obvious nor the most promising routes to a solution at the time. He said he wrote emails to OpenAI researchers Sébastien Bubeck and Mark Sellke, also a statistician at Harvard, to ask whether his interactions with ChatGPT were “part of the training data or accessible to the reasoning process” and could therefore have contributed to the result.But the answer did not satisfy Thom, who said it only addressed whether his conversations with the chatbot could be accessed directly, not whether they had entered into the vast pools of training data the company uses to improve its models. “No such qualification, explanation, or evidence was given,” he wrote. “I take this as dishonesty to say the least.”Thom said researchers aren’t equipped to reverse-engineer OpenAI’s training pipeline to figure out whether their work has been used or not. “Only OpenAI has the relevant data for that.” If the company is going to deny doing this, he said the responsibility is on them to prove that by disclosing all necessary datasets and clarifying various settings and terms setting out how it uses data.OpenAI’s reluctance to conclusively rule out any use of user data echoes the way it defended its recent Millennium Prize breakthrough, both in its public messaging and its communications with Buckmaster — who was working on the problems with Anthropic researcher Levent Alpöge in a personal capacity. In the blog post announcing the Navier-Stokes solution, which concerns the movement of fluids, OpenAI flatly denied using any specific user data: “We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem.”RelatedThe AI takeover of mathematics has begunOpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academiaWelcome to the AI crisis in mathBut it would not conclusively rule out an indirect influence: “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models⁠.” Thom said it is the same obfuscatory distinction the company drew in its communications with him. “De-identification may remove a name; it does not remove the intellectual content of a mathematical idea,” he said.In light of recent events, Thom said “Sellke’s categorical answer was, at minimum, unjustifiably broad and materially misleading; looking back it was plainly dishonest.”Thom said it “would be ethically indefensible” if nonpublic research supplied by users helped to improve models that the company then used to race those very same users to publication, without consent, proper disclosure, or credit.OpenAI did not immediately respond to The Verge’s request for comment.His comments add to mounting unease over OpenAI in mathematical circles at what should be a moment of triumph for the company. Its announced solution to one of mathematics’ legendary Millennium Prize problems is an extraordinary achievement that, should it be verified, few would deny. But this was complicated by the unusual circumstances OpenAI said led it to pursue the problem in the first place: It heard rumors online that other researchers had made major progress and thought it would try too.The ongoing incident has left a sour taste in mathematicians’ mouths. Numerous researchers told The Verge they worry behavior like this will push the field into a more secretive state if mathematicians know that even rumors they are close to a big breakthrough could ignite a race with a well-resourced tech giant eager for glory.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Robert HartCloseRobert HartAI ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Robert HartAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AINewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsOpenAICloseOpenAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All OpenAIScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceMost PopularMost PopularThe iPhone Duo is Apple’s first foldableHands-on with the foldable iPhone DuoApple’s iPhone 18 Pro has a dynamic aperture main cameraiPhone 18 live blog: On the ground at Apple’s biggest eventiPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max: Our first hands-on impressionsVideoThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in AISuno releases its first AI music model made with record industry helpOpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academiaRead the Apple document explaining how new listening features still protect your privacyApple’s new iPhone camera mode promises to prove your photo isn’t AIMicrosoft has new AI privacy rules for schoolsAmazon Prime Video’s new AI tech matches lips to dubbed audioSuno releases its first AI music model made with record industry helpTerrence O'BrienSep 9OpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academiaRobert HartSep 9Read the Apple document explaining how new listening features still protect your privacyStevie BonifieldSep 9Apple’s new iPhone camera mode promises to prove your photo isn’t AIEmma RothSep 9Microsoft has new AI privacy rules for schoolsLauren FeinerSep 9Amazon Prime Video’s new AI tech matches lips to dubbed audioEmma RothSep 9Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop StoriesSep 9Hands-on with the foldable iPhone DuoSep 9Verge staffers react to the iPhone Duo: What we love and don’t loveSep 9Apple iPhone Duo launch event: The 5 biggest announcementsSep 9OpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academiaSep 9I spent an hour riding inside Tesla’s steering-wheel-free CybercabThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy RightsYour Privacy ChoicesCookie NoticeAdChoicesLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform StatusPenske Media CorporationThe Verge is a part of PMX Global, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Media Corporation.© 2026 VM Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.Our SitesThe American PavilionARTnewsArt in AmericaArtforumArt Week NYCBeauty IncBillboardDeadlineDick Clark ProductionsThe DodoEaterFlow SpaceFNGold DerbyGolden GlobesThe Hollywood ReporterIndieWireLife is BeautifulPopsugarPunchSJ DenimRobb ReportRolling StoneSB NationSHE MediaShe KnowsSourcing JournalSoapsSporticoStyleCasterSXSWThrillistVarietyThe VergeVibeWWDNotifications DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Sign in to see your notifications or create an account to join the conversation.Sign in

Another mathematician has accused OpenAI of unethical and dishonest behavior and a lack of transparency regarding the origins of its training data, stemming from recent mathematical breakthroughs achieved by the company. This controversy arose after concerns were raised by researchers about whether the company’s models benefited from unpublished mathematical work.

Andreas Thom, among other mathematicians, expressed concerns that interactions with the ChatGPT chatbot prior to OpenAI’s significant announcements may have contributed to the success of the resulting findings. When OpenAI announced a result concerning non-sofic groups, which acknowledged building upon previous work by Thom and Gábor Kun, critics argued that the company failed to adequately credit these contributions. Thom further speculated that the company’s detailed grasp of certain techniques suggested that the AI might have utilized knowledge that was not immediately obvious or the most promising route to a solution at the time. He sought clarification from OpenAI researchers regarding whether his interactions with the chatbot were included in the training data or accessible to the reasoning process, but the response provided did not satisfy him, leading him to characterize the company's stance as dishonest.

Thom argued that researchers lack the ability to reverse-engineer the entire training pipeline to definitively determine if their work was used. He contended that if OpenAI denies the use of user work, the responsibility lies with the company to prove this by disclosing all necessary datasets and clarifying the parameters and terms under which data is used. This sentiment was echoed by the company’s defense regarding its own publicized achievements, such as the Navier-Stokes solution, where OpenAI explicitly denied accessing specific user data during the problem-solving process. While the company stated that no specific user data was accessed, Thom argued that this distinction was insufficient, suggesting that de-identification does not eliminate the intellectual content of a mathematical idea. Thom asserted that it would be ethically indefensible if unpublished user research were used to improve models that then raced the original users to publication without consent, proper disclosure, or credit.

This incident has sown unease within the mathematical community, particularly regarding the implications of the AI takeover of mathematics. Researchers worry that if skepticism persists regarding the data sources, it could foster a more secretive environment in the field, potentially causing mathematicians to withhold information about potential breakthroughs for fear of competition with well-resourced technology giants. The ongoing debate highlights a tension between the rapid advancement of AI in academia and the ethical demands for transparency and attribution in mathematical discovery.