I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions. This is sort of a weird interpretation: > One of the two main persons work at Anthrop

I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions. This is sort of a weird interpretation: > One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed - It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort. - Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showing any work they're either brilliant or cheating (probably cheating). Further, each step of progress isn't the same proportion of effort. What if moving from C -> D was actually the smallest contribution and just required a novel perspective to make the breakthrough. This part is wrong: > An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem. - it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem - it wasn't a chat excerpt, it was more like their entire git repo and project progress reports