12 ms·

My best guess is that from the perspective of the OpenAI people, Buckmaster was letting his paranoia about OpenAI training tank his opportunity to receive the C

by ummonk 20d ago

My best guess is that from the perspective of the OpenAI people, Buckmaster was letting his paranoia about OpenAI training tank his opportunity to receive the Clay Prize (it seems like Buckmaster and Alpoge's result isn't quite the full result required for the Clay Prize, whereas apparently OpenAI does have that full result worked out, using the same approach that Buckmaster and Alpoge had been exploring). Whether the Codex sessions could have indeed made their way into Astra training data is something I can only speculate on though.

az226 20d ago
Zero data retention, wink. No looksies, wink. No trainsies, wink.
- ngomez 20d ago
  Well, Buckmaster says both his and Alpöge's use of Codex was non-institutional, and OpenAI claims the right to train their models on inputs and outputs of non-enterprise users in their service policies [0]. So I'm not sure they were even promised that. [0] https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve-model-performance/ https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...
  - senordevnyc 20d ago
    Only for ChatGPT, if the user hasn’t opted out. Would mathematicians be using ChatGPT for this kind of work? Genuinely asking, I know nothing about this!
    - hodgehog11 20d ago
      Yes, mathematicians are. And yes, most of my colleagues did not even know the opt-out was an option.
      - Readerium 20d ago
        Question is what does that button do. I bet a lot of lawyers are salivating at this question too.
    - Certhas 20d ago
      If I am reading your question correctly you are asking about chat interface Vs Codex/Claude code? If so, in my experience Codex/Claude code use is widespread for mathematicians who are seriously using these tools.
  - tempfile 20d ago
    It isn't relevant whether they were promised that. Indeed I think the assumption must be that they were not promised that, since otherwise the author asking if they were would not make much sense. If OpenAI did use the conversations from Buckmaster and Alpoge, then not disclosing it, explicitly, is plagiarism. If they planned to use that plagiarism to pressure the authors to publish, that is even more unethical. What the terms of use say does not make it any more or less ethical.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 20d ago
      That's absolutely right. Why the downvotes? If OpenAI are using but not acknowledging the work of others that's plagiarism. If they don't know for sure, but aren't performing due dilligence to make sure they aren't, that's also plagiarism.
      - tempfile 20d ago
        I can imagine excuses for unknowing plagiarism in this case. What is described in the article seems much more serious: a research program that was only initiated following reports of the author's similar program. In this case no excuses of "I didn't know" can apply, it is not like this revealed some obscure work from the 1980s nobody could reasonably have foreseen. And as far as I can tell this program was only really initiated to apply pressure to the researchers, without their knowledge/consent. It looks very weird. > Why the downvotes? I think there was only ever one. Not sure why.
        YeGoblynQueenne 20d ago
        Your comment was greyed out when I saw it earlier, maybe you missed some downvotes? About the plagiarism issue, I model it as OpenAI being an advisor and their AI a PhD student. If the advisor puts their name on a paper behind that of their PhD and it turns out the PhD copied the text of the paper from somewhere else the advisor is also responsible of plagiarism, not just the student. The least the advisor can do is withdraw their authorship from the paper. But, yeah, point well made: it could be much worse than that. Like an advisor instructing a student to copy someone else's paper.
  - deleted 20d ago
    [deleted]
Semkas 20d ago
"using the same approach that Buckmaster and Alpoge had been exploring" is imo mealy wording: it seems fairly likely that OA heard Buckmaster and Alpoge were close to a breakthrough, and decided to use their unlimited compute to quickly prompt based on their assumptions about B&As work.
- dekhn 20d ago
  Is that necessarily wrong, so long as the original innovators get a citation credit?
  - dmkolobov 20d ago
    Citation of what? this was unpublished work! This computational blitz really just reads as "might makes right" on OpenAi's part... which isn't surprising, but they should probably be honest about what they've done here.
  - stevemk14ebr 20d ago
    Yes. Quite simply yes. It's unethical. And it's a dick move
curt15 20d ago
Buckmaster is already an established world expert at these sorts of problems. Declining the Clay prize would hardly dent his career.
dandanua 20d ago
Can you call paranoia a fear of something which is happening? OpenAI uses user chats for training and they are "open" about it.
qnleigh 20d ago
He doesn't seem to be after the prize himself. In this statement he credits the approach of another two researchers: > I believe Luis Mart´ınez-Zoroa deserves a Fields Medal.

by ummonk 20d ago

az226 20d ago

Zero data retention, wink. No looksies, wink. No trainsies, wink.

ngomez 20d ago
Well, Buckmaster says both his and Alpöge's use of Codex was non-institutional, and OpenAI claims the right to train their models on inputs and outputs of non-enterprise users in their service policies [0]. So I'm not sure they were even promised that. [0] https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve-model-performance/ https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...
- senordevnyc 20d ago
  Only for ChatGPT, if the user hasn’t opted out. Would mathematicians be using ChatGPT for this kind of work? Genuinely asking, I know nothing about this!
  - hodgehog11 20d ago
    Yes, mathematicians are. And yes, most of my colleagues did not even know the opt-out was an option.
    - Readerium 20d ago
      Question is what does that button do. I bet a lot of lawyers are salivating at this question too.
  - Certhas 20d ago
    If I am reading your question correctly you are asking about chat interface Vs Codex/Claude code? If so, in my experience Codex/Claude code use is widespread for mathematicians who are seriously using these tools.
- tempfile 20d ago
  It isn't relevant whether they were promised that. Indeed I think the assumption must be that they were not promised that, since otherwise the author asking if they were would not make much sense. If OpenAI did use the conversations from Buckmaster and Alpoge, then not disclosing it, explicitly, is plagiarism. If they planned to use that plagiarism to pressure the authors to publish, that is even more unethical. What the terms of use say does not make it any more or less ethical.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 20d ago
    That's absolutely right. Why the downvotes? If OpenAI are using but not acknowledging the work of others that's plagiarism. If they don't know for sure, but aren't performing due dilligence to make sure they aren't, that's also plagiarism.
    - tempfile 20d ago
      I can imagine excuses for unknowing plagiarism in this case. What is described in the article seems much more serious: a research program that was only initiated following reports of the author's similar program. In this case no excuses of "I didn't know" can apply, it is not like this revealed some obscure work from the 1980s nobody could reasonably have foreseen. And as far as I can tell this program was only really initiated to apply pressure to the researchers, without their knowledge/consent. It looks very weird. > Why the downvotes? I think there was only ever one. Not sure why.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 20d ago
        Your comment was greyed out when I saw it earlier, maybe you missed some downvotes? About the plagiarism issue, I model it as OpenAI being an advisor and their AI a PhD student. If the advisor puts their name on a paper behind that of their PhD and it turns out the PhD copied the text of the paper from somewhere else the advisor is also responsible of plagiarism, not just the student. The least the advisor can do is withdraw their authorship from the paper. But, yeah, point well made: it could be much worse than that. Like an advisor instructing a student to copy someone else's paper.
- deleted 20d ago
  [deleted]

Semkas 20d ago

"using the same approach that Buckmaster and Alpoge had been exploring" is imo mealy wording: it seems fairly likely that OA heard Buckmaster and Alpoge were close to a breakthrough, and decided to use their unlimited compute to quickly prompt based on their assumptions about B&As work.

dekhn 20d ago
Is that necessarily wrong, so long as the original innovators get a citation credit?
- dmkolobov 20d ago
  Citation of what? this was unpublished work! This computational blitz really just reads as "might makes right" on OpenAi's part... which isn't surprising, but they should probably be honest about what they've done here.
- stevemk14ebr 20d ago
  Yes. Quite simply yes. It's unethical. And it's a dick move

curt15 20d ago

Buckmaster is already an established world expert at these sorts of problems. Declining the Clay prize would hardly dent his career.

dandanua 20d ago

Can you call paranoia a fear of something which is happening? OpenAI uses user chats for training and they are "open" about it.

qnleigh 20d ago

He doesn't seem to be after the prize himself. In this statement he credits the approach of another two researchers: > I believe Luis Mart´ınez-Zoroa deserves a Fields Medal.