First of all, we would like to see pre-registration, so that we don’t end up learning only about successes (and generally cherry-picking good results, while omitting negative results).
He is trying to steer the field towards generally better practices. I don’t think this is specifically a criticism of this particular OpenAI result, but more an attempt to change the standards.
Although he is likely to have some degree of solidarity with the IMO viewpoint and to share some of their annoyance with timing of all this, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1m3uqi0/comment/n40qbe9/
Yeah, I actually looked at the early years today, and in 1969 only the three perfect scores won gold, and in 1970 this was relaxed a little bit, and the overall trend looked to me like there were multiple reforms with gradual relaxation of the standards for gold (although I did not do more than superficial sampling from several time points).
I think the official goal is still approximately 6:3:2:1, but this year those fuzzy boundaries resulted in 67 gold medals out of 630 participants (slightly above 10.6%).