I think Prinz makes a valid point that isn't discussed enough, but it also gives me pause. Apparently, there's a real assumption or idea that OpenAI wants to "destroy" scientific disciplines like mathematics with its models. I can't imagine that from any perspective.

Firstly, because they are, of course, part of the scientific process and intend to remain so. Their aim is clearly to revolutionize science using *their technology*, meaning they want to maintain a good relationship with scientists. The heated debate surrounding the Millennium Prize issue, in particular, showed that OpenAI seeks to reconcile with scientists. Secondly, from a purely economic standpoint, it's simply relevant to have a good relationship with the scientific community, especially from a PR perspective, and also in the run-up to the upcoming OpenAI IPO. Nothing is more desirable than bad press, and that's why I can't grasp the idea that OpenAI would arbitrarily destroy science.

On the one hand, the idea that OpenAI would deliberately destroy science is beyond my comprehension.

The last thing we want to avoid is bad press. Conversely, Prinz solved the problem by pointing out that the models are now so good that only the toughest tests can challenge current frontier models. And the solutions to those problems are simultaneously solutions to long-standing research tasks that coincide with the current state of science. Or, put another way: it is practically a fortunate circumstance that the challenges must be so immense that they simultaneously advance science by solving long-standing problems.