4 ms·

> If this is true he should release the actual emails these were statements while on a call, and at least the career comment Bubeck has admitted to while doing

> If this is true he should release the actual emails these were statements while on a call, and at least the career comment Bubeck has admitted to while doing damage control ("I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.)"[1]). [1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310 https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...

sinuhe69 1mo ago
No wonder - they're all working for ant! Birds of a feather flock together.
dgellow 1mo ago
What a horrible response from Bubeck. How did he think that would make him and OpenAI look good to tweet that?
- ignoramous 1mo ago
  If we're allowed to arm-chair judge harshly: It isn't uncommon for those (anybody) on the cusp of "greatness" to be delusional when challenged: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-character-syndrome https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-c...
  - fn-mote 1mo ago
    Who here is on the cusp of greatness?? Or thinks they are? I really don’t understand which party you are referring to.
    - CamperBob2 1mo ago
      Anyone who comes close to solving a Millennium problem can honestly say they are on the cusp of greatness. Not sure what this question proves either way.
- adastra22 1mo ago
  Did we read the same tweet? It felt very forthright and level-headed to me. Not at all what I expected.
  - fn-mote 1mo ago
    > Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic So using someone’s models makes someone who works for the competitor not “independent”? When their coauthor is? What does that even mean? I almost stopped reading this extra long post entirely at that point. This is not a good look in my book.
    - djokkataja 1mo ago
      The first part of the sentence is important: > Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. If an Anthropic employee is doing independent research, but with models that aren't available to the public (because they're internal models), then . . . idk. It's not clear to me why that should necessarily require a refusal to cooperate between OpenAI and Anthropic employees who are excited about solving a problem like this. For me, the bigger question here is what "internal models" means to these employees, especially in the context of the OpenAI employees repeatedly avoiding directly answering whether their model had been trained on Tristan's and Levent's ongoing work on the problem. It had always seemed like a loophole that AI companies might be tempted to exploit: yeah, they can say that they won't train on your data, but if an AI company doesn't care about ethics, they might go ahead and train a model for internal use only on everyone's data anyway, just to have as much data as possible and potentially gain an advantage in what the company can internally do. They could never publicly release any versions of a model like that, of course. And of course this is speculation.
      - adastra22 1mo ago
        This is being reported as OpenAI wanting to strip an Anthropic employee of academic credit for the work they did. What the OpenAI person involved is claiming is that they wanted the outside researcher(s) to put their name on OpenAI's work: to headline OpenAI's publication of what they earnestly believed to be an independent result. If true, that's generous and beyond the level of generosity one should expect. Extending that courtesy (beyond academic norms) to a competitor is expecting too much. It take a result OpenAI spent millions of dollars on, and put "Anthropic Researcher" right on the cover. This is, of course, taking OpenAI's side of the story at face value. But it is a consistent, coherent, and ethically justifiable series of events, if indeed it happened that way.
- johnnienaked 1mo ago
  I especially loved the part where he claims they spent $60m on compute to push on N-S because of a Twitter rumor, and they totally didn't steal the idea from mathematicians using their tools.
  - exhilaration 1mo ago
    When the authorities do that it's called parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

sinuhe69 1mo ago

No wonder - they're all working for ant! Birds of a feather flock together.

dgellow 1mo ago

What a horrible response from Bubeck. How did he think that would make him and OpenAI look good to tweet that?

ignoramous 1mo ago
If we're allowed to arm-chair judge harshly: It isn't uncommon for those (anybody) on the cusp of "greatness" to be delusional when challenged: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-character-syndrome https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-c...
- fn-mote 1mo ago
  Who here is on the cusp of greatness?? Or thinks they are? I really don’t understand which party you are referring to.
  - CamperBob2 1mo ago
    Anyone who comes close to solving a Millennium problem can honestly say they are on the cusp of greatness. Not sure what this question proves either way.
adastra22 1mo ago
Did we read the same tweet? It felt very forthright and level-headed to me. Not at all what I expected.
- fn-mote 1mo ago
  > Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic So using someone’s models makes someone who works for the competitor not “independent”? When their coauthor is? What does that even mean? I almost stopped reading this extra long post entirely at that point. This is not a good look in my book.
  - djokkataja 1mo ago
    The first part of the sentence is important: > Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. If an Anthropic employee is doing independent research, but with models that aren't available to the public (because they're internal models), then . . . idk. It's not clear to me why that should necessarily require a refusal to cooperate between OpenAI and Anthropic employees who are excited about solving a problem like this. For me, the bigger question here is what "internal models" means to these employees, especially in the context of the OpenAI employees repeatedly avoiding directly answering whether their model had been trained on Tristan's and Levent's ongoing work on the problem. It had always seemed like a loophole that AI companies might be tempted to exploit: yeah, they can say that they won't train on your data, but if an AI company doesn't care about ethics, they might go ahead and train a model for internal use only on everyone's data anyway, just to have as much data as possible and potentially gain an advantage in what the company can internally do. They could never publicly release any versions of a model like that, of course. And of course this is speculation.
    - adastra22 1mo ago
      This is being reported as OpenAI wanting to strip an Anthropic employee of academic credit for the work they did. What the OpenAI person involved is claiming is that they wanted the outside researcher(s) to put their name on OpenAI's work: to headline OpenAI's publication of what they earnestly believed to be an independent result. If true, that's generous and beyond the level of generosity one should expect. Extending that courtesy (beyond academic norms) to a competitor is expecting too much. It take a result OpenAI spent millions of dollars on, and put "Anthropic Researcher" right on the cover. This is, of course, taking OpenAI's side of the story at face value. But it is a consistent, coherent, and ethically justifiable series of events, if indeed it happened that way.
johnnienaked 1mo ago
I especially loved the part where he claims they spent $60m on compute to push on N-S because of a Twitter rumor, and they totally didn't steal the idea from mathematicians using their tools.
- exhilaration 1mo ago
  When the authorities do that it's called parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction