3 ms·

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

by lcubw 2mo ago

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?
        deleted 2mo ago
    - freejazz 2mo ago
      >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 ." Legally safe? Forensic level guarantee? Since when do they make those kinds of statements? Talk about moving the goalposts. Those are clear weasel-words from OpenAI, I'm shocked by the people who don't realize this.
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
  - 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.

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

by 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?
        deleted 2mo ago
  - freejazz 2mo ago
    >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 ." Legally safe? Forensic level guarantee? Since when do they make those kinds of statements? Talk about moving the goalposts. Those are clear weasel-words from OpenAI, I'm shocked by the people who don't realize this.
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
- 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.