5 ms·

I don’t know much about NS problem or Euler problem anyway. Can’t tell how significant it is to go from Tristan approach to OpenAI’s results. It is 10k agents

I don’t know much about NS problem or Euler problem anyway. Can’t tell how significant it is to go from Tristan approach to OpenAI’s results. It is 10k agents after all with a model that is 2x-3x more powerful than Astra. So claims some intuition is his alone and the model can’t find it independently is Tristan’s belief not the reality, which I don’t find particularly convincing. I do think that Levent guy isn’t independent and indeed does have an enormous amount of tokens to spend and also on an internal model from Anthropic. All things considered, I think OpenAI people are competitive, even aggressive. But I don’t think they steal anything. Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama, if it is 3 months, then it is a nothing burger, because by then the original results had already been published.

spwa4 24d ago
> Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama ... And there we go, a beside-the-point answer that tries to bring it back to the PR claim. And of course, an unsupported PR claim: if the initial insight really did come from a human, that would indicate the model's capability either isn't there or didn't matter. And sorry to say, but competitive adversarial rewards for humans + access to the answer always ends in peeking. In kindergarten. In universities. In Engineering firms. In Finance. No difference other than the justification afterwards. Humans peek in competitive settings. They just do. The fix is not "trust me bro", the fix is making sure they have no ability to do it in the first place. And OpenAI's answer to the "did you peek at the answer?" is trust me, bro ... as per usual. If OpenAI indeed played fair, then this is a serious "dick move", and not at all how academia is supposed to work. AND if they played fair OpenAI effectively attacked one of their customers here. If OpenAI didn't play fair then this is stealing from their customers. Which at a different level is their whole business model (get training data from customers, who even pay for that, train better model with that data, charge more, repeat).

spwa4 24d ago

> Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama ... And there we go, a beside-the-point answer that tries to bring it back to the PR claim. And of course, an unsupported PR claim: if the initial insight really did come from a human, that would indicate the model's capability either isn't there or didn't matter. And sorry to say, but competitive adversarial rewards for humans + access to the answer always ends in peeking. In kindergarten. In universities. In Engineering firms. In Finance. No difference other than the justification afterwards. Humans peek in competitive settings. They just do. The fix is not "trust me bro", the fix is making sure they have no ability to do it in the first place. And OpenAI's answer to the "did you peek at the answer?" is trust me, bro ... as per usual. If OpenAI indeed played fair, then this is a serious "dick move", and not at all how academia is supposed to work. AND if they played fair OpenAI effectively attacked one of their customers here. If OpenAI didn't play fair then this is stealing from their customers. Which at a different level is their whole business model (get training data from customers, who even pay for that, train better model with that data, charge more, repeat).