The controversy began when a senior OpenAI manager shared that GPT-5 had discovered solutions to ten famous Erdős problems[2] and made progress on several others. The announcement suggested that the model had independently cracked mathematical puzzles that had resisted human researchers for decades. Other team members echoed the message, fueling speculation about AI’s growing ability to produce original research results.
The excitement faded within hours[3] when mathematicians pointed out that the claim misrepresented[4] what actually happened. The so-called “unsolved” problems had already been resolved in academic papers, though not cataloged on all reference sites. GPT-5 had simply retrieved existing studies that the website’s curator had not yet encountered. This made the model’s role more about locating forgotten work rather than generating new solutions.
Prominent figures from the AI community were quick to react, calling the episode careless and unnecessary. The posts were later removed, and OpenAI researchers acknowledged that the model had found references in published literature, not new proofs. While the incident was contained quickly, it revived ongoing criticism about the company’s communication style and the pressure it faces to showcase major discoveries.
[5]
The more grounded takeaway is that GPT-5’s real strength lies in its capacity to navigate dense academic material. By connecting references scattered across different journals, the system can help researchers track progress in fields where terminology and records vary widely. In mathematical research, that can save considerable time and uncover overlooked connections.
Experts note that this utility should not be mistaken for independent reasoning. GPT-5 may accelerate review work and simplify the search for relevant studies, but human oversight remains essential for validation and interpretation. The episode highlights a growing challenge for the AI industry: distinguishing genuine advancement from overstatement in an environment where public attention often rewards spectacle more than precision.
Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.
Read next:
• Rude Prompts Give ChatGPT Sharper Answers, Penn State Study Finds[6]
• New Report Finds OpenAI’s GPT-5 More Likely to Produce Harmful Content Despite Safety Claims[7]
References
- ^ criticism (x.com)
- ^ Erdős problems (www.erdosproblems.com)
- ^ The excitement faded within hours (x.com)
- ^ misrepresented (x.com)
- ^ were quick to react (x.com)
- ^ Rude Prompts Give ChatGPT Sharper Answers, Penn State Study Finds (www.digitalinformationworld.com)
- ^ New Report Finds OpenAI’s GPT-5 More Likely to Produce Harmful Content Despite Safety Claims (www.digitalinformationworld.com)