4 ms·

I think this should be in the title of the post. 'OpenAI allegedly threatening to ruin a prominent researcher's career', or smth like that.

tristanj 19d ago
There's some glaring mistakes in your framing. First, this is an unnamed OpenAI employee speaking, not OpenAI the organization. Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career". The actual quote is "Why would you ruin your career?", which implies the researcher would damage their own career, i.e. via self-sabotage. Then the actual "threat" is "If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice” which is an entirely different statement.
- Ar-Curunir 19d ago
  Dude you’re over this entire thread unflinchingly supporting OpenAI with nonsense semantics-based arguments. Either put up some evidence-backed arguments, or shut up.
- Davidzheng 19d ago
  I don't even understand the conflict tbh. Probably I'm just dense. Tristan is not claiming NS, just a huge advance which may solve NS soon. OAI is claiming NS and willing to credit Tristan for the ideas and publish after. Oai offers two options, the second Tristan views as dishonest. But Tristan rejects the first, why? Because he thinks it's theft? But then why would OAI threaten him?
  - tristanj 19d ago
    He claims to have found a counterexample for NS (see the second paragraph of the article), but the paper is not ready yet. OpenAI claims to already have a full proof (which they produced in the past 5 days after the rumors leaked). Hence the dispute. What I find interesting is the timeline of when he found counterexample for NS is very unclear. Did Tristan find a counterexample weeks ago or was it very recently? Was it after OpenAI solved it? The wording is intentionally vague. Either way, there was a massive rush to publish these results.
    - Davidzheng 18d ago
      Is that version of NS Tristan stated enough for the clay prize? I thought the main gripe is Tristan claimed that OAI is stealing their approach. Or that they shouldn't try to scoop a result which he expects to complete soon. But I stand to be corrected if you know whether the version he referred to is indeed enough for millennium prize.
    - curt15 18d ago
      Hypo-dissipative NS != NS
      - tristanj 18d ago
        Thanks, I wasn't aware of this technicality.
    - deleted 18d ago
      [deleted]
  - curt15 18d ago
    > But Tristan rejects the first, why? Because he thinks it's theft? But then why would OAI threaten him? Did the first offer also come with the outrageous condition that he exclude his co-author from the credit?
    - Davidzheng 18d ago
      But i don't understand what OAI is offering in the first offer to allow them to believe they can demand that? Not publishing before Tristan? If they really beat Tristan to the publication i would consider it truly morally corrupt conduct so i feel like you can't make an offer like if you give me something i won't be totally corrupt
      - qlte 18d ago
        As an author on the final proof once ready for publication, turning the brewing conflict into "willing" collaborators. Thus solving the potential taint like we are now seeing surrounding their announcement if it became public. But Tristan worked with another collaborator from Anthropic which OpenAI felt would hurt the PR value so wouldn't entertain.
- garyfirestorm 19d ago
  > Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career"… Proceeds to ask removal of another coauthor or else we totally discredit you - phrased as why would you do this to yourself.
  - tristanj 19d ago
    Claiming OAI was going to "totally discredit" Buckmaster is baseless. From the article, it seems OAI wanted to continue discussing the situation with Buckmaster and reach a resolution, but Buckmaster did not want to, declined to respond, and published first. Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. There should be a lot more information from OAI's side coming out later today.
    - deleted 18d ago
      [deleted]
    - adolph 18d ago
      From the article, page 3: I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”
    - tomcorrigan 18d ago
      > Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. That’s not quite true though is it. OpenAI is fortunate enough to have one of its employees (you) here to advocate for its side of the story.
    - pms 18d ago
      Are we reading the same article (page 3)?
      - 18d ago
- macleginn 19d ago
  This is how deniable threats work. The promise of "not being nice" in conjunction with "ruining the career" is as clear a threat as there can be in writing.
  - smcg 18d ago
    they work really well on people who don't think.
- gcr 19d ago
  The employee was named as “Sebastien Bubeck.” It helps to read the article.
  - Readerium 19d ago
    But then who is the third person in the call.
- s1artibartfast 18d ago
  "Why would you burn your house down and kill your famiy?" "If you dont want me to be nice, then I dont have to" -nice mobster

tristanj 19d ago

There's some glaring mistakes in your framing. First, this is an unnamed OpenAI employee speaking, not OpenAI the organization. Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career". The actual quote is "Why would you ruin your career?", which implies the researcher would damage their own career, i.e. via self-sabotage. Then the actual "threat" is "If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice” which is an entirely different statement.

Ar-Curunir 19d ago
Dude you’re over this entire thread unflinchingly supporting OpenAI with nonsense semantics-based arguments. Either put up some evidence-backed arguments, or shut up.
Davidzheng 19d ago
I don't even understand the conflict tbh. Probably I'm just dense. Tristan is not claiming NS, just a huge advance which may solve NS soon. OAI is claiming NS and willing to credit Tristan for the ideas and publish after. Oai offers two options, the second Tristan views as dishonest. But Tristan rejects the first, why? Because he thinks it's theft? But then why would OAI threaten him?
- tristanj 19d ago
  He claims to have found a counterexample for NS (see the second paragraph of the article), but the paper is not ready yet. OpenAI claims to already have a full proof (which they produced in the past 5 days after the rumors leaked). Hence the dispute. What I find interesting is the timeline of when he found counterexample for NS is very unclear. Did Tristan find a counterexample weeks ago or was it very recently? Was it after OpenAI solved it? The wording is intentionally vague. Either way, there was a massive rush to publish these results.
  - Davidzheng 18d ago
    Is that version of NS Tristan stated enough for the clay prize? I thought the main gripe is Tristan claimed that OAI is stealing their approach. Or that they shouldn't try to scoop a result which he expects to complete soon. But I stand to be corrected if you know whether the version he referred to is indeed enough for millennium prize.
  - curt15 18d ago
    Hypo-dissipative NS != NS
    - tristanj 18d ago
      Thanks, I wasn't aware of this technicality.
  - deleted 18d ago
    [deleted]
- curt15 18d ago
  > But Tristan rejects the first, why? Because he thinks it's theft? But then why would OAI threaten him? Did the first offer also come with the outrageous condition that he exclude his co-author from the credit?
  - Davidzheng 18d ago
    But i don't understand what OAI is offering in the first offer to allow them to believe they can demand that? Not publishing before Tristan? If they really beat Tristan to the publication i would consider it truly morally corrupt conduct so i feel like you can't make an offer like if you give me something i won't be totally corrupt
    - qlte 18d ago
      As an author on the final proof once ready for publication, turning the brewing conflict into "willing" collaborators. Thus solving the potential taint like we are now seeing surrounding their announcement if it became public. But Tristan worked with another collaborator from Anthropic which OpenAI felt would hurt the PR value so wouldn't entertain.
garyfirestorm 19d ago
> Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career"… Proceeds to ask removal of another coauthor or else we totally discredit you - phrased as why would you do this to yourself.
- tristanj 19d ago
  Claiming OAI was going to "totally discredit" Buckmaster is baseless. From the article, it seems OAI wanted to continue discussing the situation with Buckmaster and reach a resolution, but Buckmaster did not want to, declined to respond, and published first. Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. There should be a lot more information from OAI's side coming out later today.
  - deleted 18d ago
    [deleted]
  - adolph 18d ago
    From the article, page 3: I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”
  - tomcorrigan 18d ago
    > Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. That’s not quite true though is it. OpenAI is fortunate enough to have one of its employees (you) here to advocate for its side of the story.
  - pms 18d ago
    Are we reading the same article (page 3)?
    - 18d ago
macleginn 19d ago
This is how deniable threats work. The promise of "not being nice" in conjunction with "ruining the career" is as clear a threat as there can be in writing.
- smcg 18d ago
  they work really well on people who don't think.
gcr 19d ago
The employee was named as “Sebastien Bubeck.” It helps to read the article.
- Readerium 19d ago
  But then who is the third person in the call.
s1artibartfast 18d ago
"Why would you burn your house down and kill your famiy?" "If you dont want me to be nice, then I dont have to" -nice mobster