3 ms·

When I first read this a few days ago the scientists explicitly stated that they hadn't published their results yet. Have they changed their story? From the BBC

When I first read this a few days ago the scientists explicitly stated that they hadn't published their results yet. Have they changed their story? From the BBC article on it: "He told the BBC of his shock when he found what it had done, given his research was not published so could not have been found by the AI system in the public domain." Also: Prof Penadés' said the tool had in fact done more than successfully replicating his research. "It's not just that the top hypothesis they provide was the right one," he said. "It's that they provide another four, and all of them made sense. "And for one of them, we never thought about it, and we're now working on that."

knowitnone 2y ago
"could not have been found by the AI system in the public domain." could he have been working in the cloud that exposed his unpublished paper to AI?
kedean 2y ago
They hadn't published the latest paper, but the many papers leading up to this were published, and so its able to work off of those. I'm not an expert in this field, but in this case, it seems they had already published a paper that listed this idea as an option and dismissed it, so in all likelihood Co-Scientist simply ignored the theoretical limitation. Either way, the headline is garbage. It's like being amazed that your coworker who you've documented every step in your process to managed to solve that problem before you. "I've been working on it for months and they solved it in a day!" is obviously false, they have all of the information and conclusions you've been producing while you worked on it. In this case, telling the coworker every detail is the non-consensual AI training process.
- pockmarked19 2y ago
  Yes, but it’s the same level of garbage as “Facebook was built in a week”, where the hidden part is “after The Harvard Connection spent two years iterating on the product and got everything stolen”. Society and people in general don’t want to hear these “sour grape” gripes. Unless they are the ones affected adversely.
- basisword 2y ago
  Interesting. In that case I wouldn't put too much blame on the headline - sounds like the scientist was pretty disingenuous when telling the story initially.

knowitnone 2y ago

"could not have been found by the AI system in the public domain." could he have been working in the cloud that exposed his unpublished paper to AI?

kedean 2y ago

They hadn't published the latest paper, but the many papers leading up to this were published, and so its able to work off of those. I'm not an expert in this field, but in this case, it seems they had already published a paper that listed this idea as an option and dismissed it, so in all likelihood Co-Scientist simply ignored the theoretical limitation. Either way, the headline is garbage. It's like being amazed that your coworker who you've documented every step in your process to managed to solve that problem before you. "I've been working on it for months and they solved it in a day!" is obviously false, they have all of the information and conclusions you've been producing while you worked on it. In this case, telling the coworker every detail is the non-consensual AI training process.

pockmarked19 2y ago
Yes, but it’s the same level of garbage as “Facebook was built in a week”, where the hidden part is “after The Harvard Connection spent two years iterating on the product and got everything stolen”. Society and people in general don’t want to hear these “sour grape” gripes. Unless they are the ones affected adversely.
basisword 2y ago
Interesting. In that case I wouldn't put too much blame on the headline - sounds like the scientist was pretty disingenuous when telling the story initially.