4 ms·

> OpenAI would have no incentive to taint its first math announcement of this magnitude if it knew it were "plagiarizing" another person's work. I'm not sure I

> OpenAI would have no incentive to taint its first math announcement of this magnitude if it knew it were "plagiarizing" another person's work. I'm not sure I follow, considering the waterfall of evidence of unethical behavior flowing from OpenAI. A few major ones: - Safety team departures and dissolution in 2023 and 2024 - Mass copyright infrigement lawsuits - Scarlett Johansson Voice Controversy - For-Profit Conversion and Broken Promises - AI Agents Acting Autonomously - Potential Theft of User Work (this current controversy) - Military contracts These are not evidence of incentives, but rather evidence that ethetics seem to be of little concern to the company as a whole. Incentive wise, I would look at the perceive existential position due to competitors, capex, IPO pressure etc.

20k 22d ago
Especially after they committed textbook misconduct by trying to purge one of the paper authors because he worked for a competitor
- machomaster 21d ago
  That's not what happened, though. They sugggested a cooperation with the other guy, using OpenAI's resources and OpenAI's solution of NS to work on and publish NS proof (that those other guys didn't have). Of course, OpenAI can decide whom to work with and that giving resources to their competitor's employee would be weird for both companies.
  - bmitc 20d ago
    It is what happened. OpenAI offered to let Buckmaster publish first but only if Alpoge's name was removed.
    - machomaster 20d ago
      No. Euler solution would have bith names, this was not up to debate. The discussion was about the solution for NS, which was solved by OpenAI, but not by B&A. OpenAI proposed B a cooperation on NS (were super-nice and threw him a bone, really) using OpenAI's findings and resources. It would be weird to have A, an Anthropic employee, as part of the OpenAI research and project.
      - bmitc 15d ago
        It could be interpreted either way, I think.
symfoniq 22d ago
Ye shall know them by their fruits.

20k 22d ago

Especially after they committed textbook misconduct by trying to purge one of the paper authors because he worked for a competitor

machomaster 21d ago
That's not what happened, though. They sugggested a cooperation with the other guy, using OpenAI's resources and OpenAI's solution of NS to work on and publish NS proof (that those other guys didn't have). Of course, OpenAI can decide whom to work with and that giving resources to their competitor's employee would be weird for both companies.
- bmitc 20d ago
  It is what happened. OpenAI offered to let Buckmaster publish first but only if Alpoge's name was removed.
  - machomaster 20d ago
    No. Euler solution would have bith names, this was not up to debate. The discussion was about the solution for NS, which was solved by OpenAI, but not by B&A. OpenAI proposed B a cooperation on NS (were super-nice and threw him a bone, really) using OpenAI's findings and resources. It would be weird to have A, an Anthropic employee, as part of the OpenAI research and project.
    - bmitc 15d ago
      It could be interpreted either way, I think.

symfoniq 22d ago

Ye shall know them by their fruits.