Did the ChatGPT Erdos controversy obscure a real achievement?

Previous discussion of the offending claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45633482

An OpenAI researcher tweeted: “ Using thousands of GPT5 queries, we found solutions to 10 Erdős problems that were listed as open: 223, 339, 494, 515, 621, 822, 883 (part 2/2), 903, 1043, 1079.

Additionally for 11 other problems, GPT5 found significant partial progress that we added to the official website: 32, 167, 188, 750, 788, 811, 827, 829, 1017, 1011, 1041. For 827, Erdős's original paper actually contained an error, and the work of Martínez and Roldán-Pensado explains this and fixes the argument.”

This was taken (out of context?) to be claiming ChatGPT solved the open problems, when in fact it “just” found them through a literature review. (Though an earlier tweet in the same thread made the literature review interpretation more explicitly)

The ensuing controversy around whether there was false hype buried a potentially significant demonstration of LLMs’ ability to unlock lost and forgotten knowledge in a way Sebastien explains and makes the case here as being a big deal.