3 ms·
Claiming OAI was going to "totally discredit" Buckmaster is baseless. From the article, it seems OAI wanted to continue discussing the situation with Buckmaste
by tristanj 18d 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 agoFrom 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 17d agoAre we reading the same article (page 3)?
- tristanj 17d agoOpenAI never asked for the removal of another coauthor. The parent comment is spreading misinformation. OpenAI offered to let Buckmaster to write their Millennium Prize paper, so long as Alpoge (who works at Anthropic) was not a coauthor on the OpenAI paper. Buckmaster declined this offer.