The chats the professor had are not generic knowledge. And yes of course you still need to cite Newton and Leibniz depending on what result you want to mention.

The chats the professor had are not generic knowledge. And yes of course you still need to cite Newton and Leibniz depending on what result you want to mention. What’s allowed to be not cited are not status quo, the term you’re looking for is “folklore” results aka results that have been around so long that 1) nobody knows who came up with them or 2) everyone knows who came up with them. The second point: if you say you can’t prove that OpenAI actually used it, it doesn’t mean that OpenAI did not use it. It’s hacker news not lawyers news here lol. And OpenAI can’t prove that they didn’t use it either. The whole point is that Levent felt he had reasonable suspicion to believe the AI did use the result, because he felt like without his input on an unpublished paper it was unlikely for AI to reach the same result. I haven’t read the paper so I don’t know where I stand on that. On the last point, about your “for the greater good” argument. It’s higher maths lol. I don’t know about this field but I doubt it’ll be very useful for society. Maybe it’ll make one part 2x faster which makes some rocket cheaper to launch. Does the average person care? Debatable. I think it’s reasonable to hold published papers in proof based fields to a higher standard. Otherwise the current & future problems of ML engineer fields just expand to other fields. No thanks. Finally, if you anonpost to the autistic Internet forum that everyone else is “brain dead screeching”, it really just says something about yourself lol.