> …in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem.
> Following an investigation, we have confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training.
I'm sure some people doubt OpenAI's claims, but Anthropic has also made advances in mathematics using AI. At some point you have to accept that not every single one of these breakthroughs is regurgitating a human insight.
If doubters refuse to pick specific cognitive tasks that they'd bet against AIs being able to accomplish in the next 4 years, I don't see how their claims are useful. If AIs are so limited in their capabilities, then clearly there must be some things they'll certainly be incapable of, at least in the short term.
Scaling has produced novel capabilities with each larger model, and the rate of new capabilities doesn't seem to be slowing down yet. Even if you think the rate of improvements will slow down, that still means there will be significant improvements beyond what current models can do. Moore's law has slowed down, but modern computers are still much faster than ones from a decade ago. And unless you work at Anthropic or OpenAI, you don't know what the state-of-the-art is capable of. The most advanced publicly available models are months behind what AI labs have, and are deliberately limited to reduce liability.