> Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama ... A

> Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama ... And there we go, a beside-the-point answer that tries to bring it back to the PR claim. And of course, an unsupported PR claim: if the initial insight really did come from a human, that would indicate the model's capability either isn't there or didn't matter. And sorry to say, but competitive adversarial rewards for humans + access to the answer always ends in peeking. In kindergarten. In universities. In Engineering firms. In Finance. No difference other than the justification afterwards. Humans peek in competitive settings. They just do. The fix is not "trust me bro", the fix is making sure they have no ability to do it in the first place. And OpenAI's answer to the "did you peek at the answer?" is trust me, bro ... as per usual. If OpenAI indeed played fair, then this is a serious "dick move", and not at all how academia is supposed to work. AND if they played fair OpenAI effectively attacked one of their customers here. If OpenAI didn't play fair then this is stealing from their customers. Which at a different level is their whole business model (get training data from customers, who even pay for that, train better model with that data, charge more, repeat).