4 ms·

Well, regardless of the drama, the interesting part on Anthropic vs OpenAI is: - One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solv

Well, regardless of the drama, the interesting part on Anthropic vs OpenAI is: - One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed - An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem. There is little doubt that OpenAI is so much ahead and maybe the gap is even larger than what we see on Astra vs Fable.

grey-area 26d ago
Often with a hint on how to solve something, solving it is much much easier. It seems like that's what happened here. Very weird behaviour from OpenAI, offering partial credit to on person, but not the other person involved. Trying to bully the mathematicians involved (see threats quoted upthread). I suppose it's the sort of amoral behaviour we've come to expect from them.
pfbtgom 26d ago
I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions. This is sort of a weird interpretation: > One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed - It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort. - Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showing any work they're either brilliant or cheating (probably cheating). Further, each step of progress isn't the same proportion of effort. What if moving from C -> D was actually the smallest contribution and just required a novel perspective to make the breakthrough. This part is wrong: > An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem. - it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem - it wasn't a chat excerpt, it was more like their entire git repo and project progress reports
- cbarrick 25d ago
  > it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem Well, a whole team plus $15 million in compute spend. (That's what OAI would have charged for the same number of tokens.)

grey-area 26d ago

Often with a hint on how to solve something, solving it is much much easier. It seems like that's what happened here. Very weird behaviour from OpenAI, offering partial credit to on person, but not the other person involved. Trying to bully the mathematicians involved (see threats quoted upthread). I suppose it's the sort of amoral behaviour we've come to expect from them.

pfbtgom 26d ago

I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions. This is sort of a weird interpretation: > One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed - It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort. - Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showing any work they're either brilliant or cheating (probably cheating). Further, each step of progress isn't the same proportion of effort. What if moving from C -> D was actually the smallest contribution and just required a novel perspective to make the breakthrough. This part is wrong: > An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem. - it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem - it wasn't a chat excerpt, it was more like their entire git repo and project progress reports

cbarrick 25d ago
> it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem Well, a whole team plus $15 million in compute spend. (That's what OAI would have charged for the same number of tokens.)