3 ms·
> What the OpenAI person involved is claiming is that they wanted the outside researcher(s) to put their name on OpenAI's work > If true, that's generous and b
by troupo 24d ago
> What the OpenAI person involved is claiming is that they wanted the outside researcher(s) to put their name on OpenAI's work
> If true, that's generous and beyond the level of generosity one should expect
"We highly likely stole your work, and threatened you with 'this is bad for your career' and we refuse to acknowledge any work by your collaborator just because he works at a competitor, but we are so so so so generous"
- adastra22 24d agoThe two proofs are structurally very different, and don’t even prove the same conjecture. It’s becoming very clear that OpenAI did not steal anything here.
- troupo 24d agoIf it was "very clear", OpenAI wouldn't be threatening the researcher with "it's very bad for your career" or state "we can't tell you if it was trained on user input". Additionally, according to the researcher, OpenAI's proof follows the same approach they used, and which was largely unused in academia, but OpenAI claimes they arrived at it immediately.
- geocar 24d agoBullshit. Ain’t no way you read one 100 page paper let alone two with enough understanding to make such a claim. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
- CamperBob2 24d agoUser name checks out