3 ms·

But Tristan doesn't even want to be credited for the millennium prize--does he? He wanted to be the first to solve it and got scooped (which ig is not a great l

But Tristan doesn't even want to be credited for the millennium prize--does he? He wanted to be the first to solve it and got scooped (which ig is not a great look for OAI ethically but also not forbidden). And the only reading for her of asking to remove levent must be in light of this offer (to credit him for millennium prize) right? It's not like they can ask him to remove levent from the main papers without this offer(what would Tristan gain?) My guess is that OAI tried to be "generous" and offered to share credit on millennium with Tristan but not Levent. And Tristan got understandably offended by this offer (which probably oai felt like was the right thing to offer but they couldn't really offer to do the most ethical thing for some reason) and then the random conflicts and weird threats started.

lukewarm707 25d ago
my reading was that openai did not deny plagiarising the approach from their prompts. openai then tried to effectively bribe buckmaster with a shared citation, whilst dropping his co-author who works for anthropic. after buckmaster refused, openai tried to threaten him.
- Davidzheng 25d ago
  Oai denies looking at prompts but doesn't deny training on them.
  - lukewarm707 25d ago
    if they do not deny training on them, they can't deny plagiarism.
    - fc417fc802 25d ago
      By that logic everything any LLM spits out is plagiarizing the vast majority of work written prior to a few months ago. That doesn't seem like a useful or desirable line of argument to me.
      - myrmidon 25d ago
        Just replace the model with a human student. "Training" on textbooks => fine "Training" with unpublished notes from another professor, then publishing something on that exact topic with a similar approach without giving any credit => extremely questionable.
        fc417fc802 25d ago
        Presumably the professor voluntarily provided the notes in this analogy. I think the student would also be expected to cite the textbook if building off of it directly. In contrast, humans are generally not expected to cite "general inspiration" or what have you. So if we're to apply human standards, and assuming that the model was trained on the relevant work, it would only be plagiarism if the model directly built upon that previous work (at least IMO). The trouble here is that if LLM training constitutes direct use then approximately _everything_ they output is blatant plagiarism, not just a few pieces of academic work. Conversely if training is viewed as analogous to a student attending classes to learn general concepts (not a perfect analogy, I realize) then nothing they output on their own (as opposed to receiving as part of context) is plagiarism. Thus this seems like a fairly useless line of argument to me as far as the current topic goes. It either implicates this academic work along with literally everything else or else it does not implicate this academic work. Kind of like nuking an entire city and then saying "mission accomplished, killed the bad guy".
        anonymousDan 25d ago
        This is just a nonsense line of reasoning. Training based on the solution to the problem (or the key insight behind the problem) is clearly a form of plagiarism.
        fc417fc802 25d ago
        What about my line of reasoning is nonsense? I made no claim either in support of or contrary to yours. Rather I pointed out that by this logic literally everything that an LLM spits out is plagiarism of the vast majority of the entire body of human literature in existence. Can you offer meaningful refutation of that observation of mine?
  - sdenton4 25d ago
    At this point who knows? Maybe the agents got into the user data while no one was looking.
    - mswphd 25d ago
      they're using a new model trained since the prompts happened. They are not denying the other group's solution may have been in their model weights, despite it being unreleased.
- hellohello2 25d ago
  This definitely feels like the correct reading unless there is information we were not provided with. If the problem were unimportant, there would be no debate that this is not OK...
  - hellohello2 25d ago
    I was too slow to edit this post but I'm not sure why I said this. This is too assertive about a situation I don't know much about.
- itemize123 25d ago
  I think it's worse - openai didn't even deny training on their exact manuscript (when they most likely opted out);

lukewarm707 25d ago

my reading was that openai did not deny plagiarising the approach from their prompts. openai then tried to effectively bribe buckmaster with a shared citation, whilst dropping his co-author who works for anthropic. after buckmaster refused, openai tried to threaten him.

Davidzheng 25d ago
Oai denies looking at prompts but doesn't deny training on them.
- lukewarm707 25d ago
  if they do not deny training on them, they can't deny plagiarism.
  - fc417fc802 25d ago
    By that logic everything any LLM spits out is plagiarizing the vast majority of work written prior to a few months ago. That doesn't seem like a useful or desirable line of argument to me.
    - myrmidon 25d ago
      Just replace the model with a human student. "Training" on textbooks => fine "Training" with unpublished notes from another professor, then publishing something on that exact topic with a similar approach without giving any credit => extremely questionable.
      - fc417fc802 25d ago
        Presumably the professor voluntarily provided the notes in this analogy. I think the student would also be expected to cite the textbook if building off of it directly. In contrast, humans are generally not expected to cite "general inspiration" or what have you. So if we're to apply human standards, and assuming that the model was trained on the relevant work, it would only be plagiarism if the model directly built upon that previous work (at least IMO). The trouble here is that if LLM training constitutes direct use then approximately _everything_ they output is blatant plagiarism, not just a few pieces of academic work. Conversely if training is viewed as analogous to a student attending classes to learn general concepts (not a perfect analogy, I realize) then nothing they output on their own (as opposed to receiving as part of context) is plagiarism. Thus this seems like a fairly useless line of argument to me as far as the current topic goes. It either implicates this academic work along with literally everything else or else it does not implicate this academic work. Kind of like nuking an entire city and then saying "mission accomplished, killed the bad guy".
        anonymousDan 25d ago
        This is just a nonsense line of reasoning. Training based on the solution to the problem (or the key insight behind the problem) is clearly a form of plagiarism.
        fc417fc802 25d ago
        What about my line of reasoning is nonsense? I made no claim either in support of or contrary to yours. Rather I pointed out that by this logic literally everything that an LLM spits out is plagiarism of the vast majority of the entire body of human literature in existence. Can you offer meaningful refutation of that observation of mine?
- sdenton4 25d ago
  At this point who knows? Maybe the agents got into the user data while no one was looking.
  - mswphd 25d ago
    they're using a new model trained since the prompts happened. They are not denying the other group's solution may have been in their model weights, despite it being unreleased.
hellohello2 25d ago
This definitely feels like the correct reading unless there is information we were not provided with. If the problem were unimportant, there would be no debate that this is not OK...
- hellohello2 25d ago
  I was too slow to edit this post but I'm not sure why I said this. This is too assertive about a situation I don't know much about.
itemize123 25d ago
I think it's worse - openai didn't even deny training on their exact manuscript (when they most likely opted out);