4 ms·

Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

75 points by lcubw 2mo ago

lcubw 2mo ago
OpenAI claims to have solved a decades old mathematical problem just as researchers are about to publish about their solution. Coincidence?
- jsLavaGoat 2mo ago
  AI derangement syndrome is amazing. The researchers were also using AI so we're really just arguing over how much AI is allowed. But somehow a lean-verified proof that came first doesn't count because reasons. If you have been involved in academia in any way, you know this happens all the time because the field is nearing a breakthrough, not a single person.
  - cratermoon 2mo ago
    No, we're arguing over whether or not openai stole the other researcher's work. The evidence is pretty damning. https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-career-making-math-problem-says-nyu-mathematician/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-car...
    - elevatedastalt 2mo ago
      Actually the evidence is not damning at all. The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are making a legally-safe statement since promising a forensic level guarantee that nothing Tristan has every typed into ChatGPT has ever made its way into any training data is a massive claim. It's also a ridiculous expectation since tons of researchers use ChatGPT or Codex and many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.
      - aedfhgaerty 2mo ago
        >The evidence is a combination of two things And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). >many have "Use this data to improve" setting on. Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct, not IP law. It would be misconduct for OpenAI to publish without proper reference to prior art even if that prior art had been explicitly committed to the public domain 1,000 years ago.
        andriy_koval 2mo ago
        > And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). yeah, its not "we know" but "Buckmaster said this". People lie often, not sure why we would presume unconditional innocence of one side in this case.
        aedfhgaerty 2mo ago
        https://xcancel.com/sebastienbubeck/status/2097379411691516310 https://xcancel.com/sebastienbubeck/status/20973794116915163... >It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. >I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Maybe Buckmaster exaggerated the threatening tone and maybe Levent doesn't actually deserve authorship. But he wasn't lying.
        andriy_koval 2mo ago
        > But he wasn't lying. and we know this how?
    - jsLavaGoat 2mo ago
      It’s just a coincidence the other team had an Anthropoc employee on it, I’m sure.
- zaubarari 2mo ago
  It's just a desperate attempt to prove how grandiose their new model is
  - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
    If they want to desperately solve the remaining Millennium Prize problems, I won't object.
  - simianwords 2mo ago
    Yeah how desperate to literally solve a Millenium problem? They sure look stupid now. You’ve caught them!
    - freejazz 2mo ago
      They do look pretty stupid right now, actually.
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      This but unironically
- arjie 2mo ago
  Their claim is that they put it to the task after hearing about rumors that Anthropic had gotten there. So not a coincidence in any telling of the tale.
imjonse 2mo ago
OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.
- bearseascape 2mo ago
  They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful (unless, for some strange reason, they have proofs for the other problems but haven’t released them yet).
  - aeve890 2mo ago
    >They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful How convenient that they could solve the only problem where researchers have done most of the legwork already. What a coincidence. And the timing, perfect.
- TitusCaius 2mo ago
  Though they claim the contrary, it looks that OpenAI would get nowhere if it did not have information about a recent breakthrough.
  - simianwords 2mo ago
    Comment that will age poorly
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      Enlighten us?
      - llimos 2mo ago
        Because AI will end everybody's lifetimes, I think
    - 2mo ago
demibabs 2mo ago
This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.
- fwlr 2mo ago
  For my money, the most “AI does my research” mistake I’ve seen in this whole mess is someone saying “the original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did”. It has all the hallmarks of a classic AI blunder - partially eliding the name of the concept while oversimplifying the concept, a dramatic burst of confidence because it got to express its conclusion as a contradiction, etc. You can practically hear the original AI sentence (“One party lands the Navier-Stokes solve — not the original researchers, but OpenAI.”) before a few words were shuffled around to wash off some of the slop.
  - greygoo222 2mo ago
    [flagged]
- WarmWash 2mo ago
  "Is OpenAI taking everyone for fools?" Author proceeds to take their audience for fools
- avree 2mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#2026_claims_of_counter-example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existenc... Going off the believable citations in the wiki page here, it seems more complicated than "who solved it", as there's a mathematician, Anthropic, and OpenAI having a priority dispute.
  - demibabs 2mo ago
    I’m well aware of the dispute, and OpenAI’s conduct has definitely been less than respectable. But when the central claim of the argument (that OpenAI and the researchers solved the same problem) is completely false, it’s hard to take the article seriously.
ChrisArchitect 2mo ago
Discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915

75 points by lcubw 2mo ago

lcubw 2mo ago

OpenAI claims to have solved a decades old mathematical problem just as researchers are about to publish about their solution. Coincidence?

jsLavaGoat 2mo ago
AI derangement syndrome is amazing. The researchers were also using AI so we're really just arguing over how much AI is allowed. But somehow a lean-verified proof that came first doesn't count because reasons. If you have been involved in academia in any way, you know this happens all the time because the field is nearing a breakthrough, not a single person.
- cratermoon 2mo ago
  No, we're arguing over whether or not openai stole the other researcher's work. The evidence is pretty damning. https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-career-making-math-problem-says-nyu-mathematician/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-car...
  - elevatedastalt 2mo ago
    Actually the evidence is not damning at all. The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are making a legally-safe statement since promising a forensic level guarantee that nothing Tristan has every typed into ChatGPT has ever made its way into any training data is a massive claim. It's also a ridiculous expectation since tons of researchers use ChatGPT or Codex and many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.
    - aedfhgaerty 2mo ago
      >The evidence is a combination of two things And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). >many have "Use this data to improve" setting on. Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct, not IP law. It would be misconduct for OpenAI to publish without proper reference to prior art even if that prior art had been explicitly committed to the public domain 1,000 years ago.
      - andriy_koval 2mo ago
        > And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). yeah, its not "we know" but "Buckmaster said this". People lie often, not sure why we would presume unconditional innocence of one side in this case.
        aedfhgaerty 2mo ago
        https://xcancel.com/sebastienbubeck/status/2097379411691516310 https://xcancel.com/sebastienbubeck/status/20973794116915163... >It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. >I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Maybe Buckmaster exaggerated the threatening tone and maybe Levent doesn't actually deserve authorship. But he wasn't lying.
        andriy_koval 2mo ago
        > But he wasn't lying. and we know this how?
  - jsLavaGoat 2mo ago
    It’s just a coincidence the other team had an Anthropoc employee on it, I’m sure.
zaubarari 2mo ago
It's just a desperate attempt to prove how grandiose their new model is
- kelseyfrog 2mo ago
  If they want to desperately solve the remaining Millennium Prize problems, I won't object.
- simianwords 2mo ago
  Yeah how desperate to literally solve a Millenium problem? They sure look stupid now. You’ve caught them!
  - freejazz 2mo ago
    They do look pretty stupid right now, actually.
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    This but unironically
arjie 2mo ago
Their claim is that they put it to the task after hearing about rumors that Anthropic had gotten there. So not a coincidence in any telling of the tale.

imjonse 2mo ago

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

bearseascape 2mo ago
They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful (unless, for some strange reason, they have proofs for the other problems but haven’t released them yet).
- aeve890 2mo ago
  >They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful How convenient that they could solve the only problem where researchers have done most of the legwork already. What a coincidence. And the timing, perfect.
TitusCaius 2mo ago
Though they claim the contrary, it looks that OpenAI would get nowhere if it did not have information about a recent breakthrough.
- simianwords 2mo ago
  Comment that will age poorly
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    Enlighten us?
    - llimos 2mo ago
      Because AI will end everybody's lifetimes, I think
  - 2mo ago

demibabs 2mo ago

This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.

fwlr 2mo ago
For my money, the most “AI does my research” mistake I’ve seen in this whole mess is someone saying “the original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did”. It has all the hallmarks of a classic AI blunder - partially eliding the name of the concept while oversimplifying the concept, a dramatic burst of confidence because it got to express its conclusion as a contradiction, etc. You can practically hear the original AI sentence (“One party lands the Navier-Stokes solve — not the original researchers, but OpenAI.”) before a few words were shuffled around to wash off some of the slop.
- greygoo222 2mo ago
  [flagged]
WarmWash 2mo ago
"Is OpenAI taking everyone for fools?" Author proceeds to take their audience for fools
avree 2mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#2026_claims_of_counter-example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existenc... Going off the believable citations in the wiki page here, it seems more complicated than "who solved it", as there's a mathematician, Anthropic, and OpenAI having a priority dispute.
- demibabs 2mo ago
  I’m well aware of the dispute, and OpenAI’s conduct has definitely been less than respectable. But when the central claim of the argument (that OpenAI and the researchers solved the same problem) is completely false, it’s hard to take the article seriously.

ChrisArchitect 2mo ago

Discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915