Apologies if you see this post twice in your timeline, however, since "followers only" metadata got added to the reply chain and I can't remove it, my reply has DRM on it that could prevent people from seeing the followup, so here is my reply to the person who originally brought this up:
-----
I apologize that it took me a few days to reply to you: I had muted the thread because it got way too much Engagement and it wasn't good for my mennal helths, and I came back when I felt better to see if there was ever a demonstrable verdict on the disagreement about this detail.
I agree that the post you linked is pretty convincing that the OP who posted the buggy proof was already aware of the bug and chose not to say anything, as a "funny" way to disclose a bug. I think that was, in fact, dickish behavior: if you know it's a bug, then it should be clearly labeled as such even if it's formulated in a humorous way.
I do not think it materially alters the point of my post at all, which is that LLMs can trick you by exploiting bugs to falsify results. All it changes is that OP, specifically, was already aware that the LLM was trying to trick them, and chose to pass it on unaltered and let other people puzzle it out instead of filing a clear bug report, with the nature of the prank being clarified later. But I will boost this and edit the original post to add this clarifying detail.