Post

"The proof [...] was obtained in a conversation with ChatGPT-6 Astra on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 1:02 AM PDT. We then prepared this manuscript for public release, with the intent of uploading it on the morning of Thursday, September 17, 2026" Shameless, and shameful. arxiv.org/abs/2609.207...

Third paper on ≈the same open question within days: this one is the third. The authors blatantly acknowledge their whole plan was to get and dump a ChatGPT proof on arXiv in ONE day to claim a result, and complain about being "scooped" by another group WHICH DID THE SAME THING Do you feel no shame?

We considered not responding, but feel we should set the record straight. This thread suggests that we prompted AI and rushed to share an AI-written solution without understanding it. This is not what happened. Years of our unpublished notes and partial progress were shared with AI.

We gradually arrived at a short proof which naturally fit with what we already knew. We carefully verified it and wrote the entire paper by hand. In our disclosure, we tried to be as transparent and ethical as possible about the timeline and AI's role; interpreting it otherwise misses its purpose.

The community should discuss how norms and expectations should evolve in this new era while preserving respect for each other, but publicly shaming colleagues without knowing the context is maybe not the right way to have that discussion.

Fair - I am all for having this conversation (starting here or by email). The timeframe of 'getting the proof to putting a paper online' is still a red flag to me (not just in the case of your paper), as I genuinely believe there's no way to digest a proof and write a clear exposition in that time.

We understand the concern, though we don't think the timeframe (which in our case was 2 days) alone should be decisive. The paper itself is probably the best basis for judging the exposition. We're also happy to continue the discussion by email.