3 ms·

You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers. Everyone in this thread seems to have mad

You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers. Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.

mrbungie 18d ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An article post that wouldn't even amount to a white paper + the LEAN proof is not evidence of how they got to produce it.
- cman1444 17d ago
  Is it really such an extraordinary claim to say that they could have solved the problem without copying Buckmaster and Alpoge? It seems very much in the realm of possibilities. To me, it seems just as extraordinary to claim that they did "cheat". If I were a betting man, I would put the odds around 50/50 from everything I've read on the subject. But my point is that everyone seems to be presuming guilt.
  - mrbungie 15d ago
    It is an extraordinary claim, it is a millenium prize problem after all. We don't even know, even if there was no copying, how much human involvement there was in the result.
TheOtherHobbes 18d ago
If the new model is that good, and is chewing through open problems at an unprecedented rate, the smart move would have been to let the humans have their W on this one and present solutions to those other problems. Especially if there really is a long list of them. "Here are a few hundred proofs" is far more convincing than "We really Navier Stokes and coincidentally someone else did too but we don't know the details or anything, who us, definitely not." It's a PR fiasco, and a cynic might wonder if it's entirely about the IPO. I'm consistently entertained by how these companies, with the most advanced models on the planet, consistently do the most idiotic things.
- cman1444 17d ago
  It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others. There's many cases of researchers racing to solve various problems after hearing that others are working on them. I don't think anyone's suggesting that it was a coincidence at all. In fact, OpenAI freely admits that they started working on the problem after hearing rumours that others were close to solving it. To me, that's not evidence of "cheating" in any way.

mrbungie 18d ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An article post that wouldn't even amount to a white paper + the LEAN proof is not evidence of how they got to produce it.

cman1444 17d ago
Is it really such an extraordinary claim to say that they could have solved the problem without copying Buckmaster and Alpoge? It seems very much in the realm of possibilities. To me, it seems just as extraordinary to claim that they did "cheat". If I were a betting man, I would put the odds around 50/50 from everything I've read on the subject. But my point is that everyone seems to be presuming guilt.
- mrbungie 15d ago
  It is an extraordinary claim, it is a millenium prize problem after all. We don't even know, even if there was no copying, how much human involvement there was in the result.

TheOtherHobbes 18d ago

If the new model is that good, and is chewing through open problems at an unprecedented rate, the smart move would have been to let the humans have their W on this one and present solutions to those other problems. Especially if there really is a long list of them. "Here are a few hundred proofs" is far more convincing than "We really Navier Stokes and coincidentally someone else did too but we don't know the details or anything, who us, definitely not." It's a PR fiasco, and a cynic might wonder if it's entirely about the IPO. I'm consistently entertained by how these companies, with the most advanced models on the planet, consistently do the most idiotic things.

cman1444 17d ago
It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others. There's many cases of researchers racing to solve various problems after hearing that others are working on them. I don't think anyone's suggesting that it was a coincidence at all. In fact, OpenAI freely admits that they started working on the problem after hearing rumours that others were close to solving it. To me, that's not evidence of "cheating" in any way.