Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem

techcrunch.com

1–10 of 64 posts

Re: OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem

#4
OpenAI has a lot of explaining to do here.

The “least worst” representation of the course of events is that their researchers are just jerks, and not behaving in a manner that’s considered acceptable in the research community.

Other alleged scenarios just go downhill from there.

Re: OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem

#5
The most sympathetic interpretation possible of the events for OAI is that they learned two mathematicians were closing in on a solution and decided to throw all of their weight behind getting there first, which honestly still doesn’t paint them in a particularly positive light.

Re: OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem

#6

The most sympathetic interpretation possible of the events for OAI is that they learned two mathematicians were closing in on a solution and decided to throw all of their weight behind getting there first, which honestly still doesn’t paint them in a particularly positive light.

The most sympathetic interpretation is just what OpenAI actually claims: they thought the other guys already got there, wanted to see if OpenAI could do it too, and were surprised to discover the other guys hadn't gotten there yet.

Re: OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem

#8
Shocking, I really expected more from the "totally legitimate startup" planning a $2 trillion IPO with their bottomless money pit. I genuinely assumed that the company credibly accused of stealing from Apple in the most ham-fised way possible would have some kind of guiding ethical principles. At the very least the paragon of decency that is Sam Altman would have stopped this.

Get ready, bag-holders on index-tracking funds... you're about to lose your shirts.

Re: OpenAI fought dirty on career-making math problem

#9
post #4

OpenAI has a lot of explaining to do here. The “least worst” representation of the course of events is that their researchers are just jerks, and not behaving in a manner that’s considered acceptable in the research community. Other alleged scenarios just go downhill from there.

It is worth actually reading OpenAI's response, which is basically that they were trying to see if their models could do what Anthropic had already done, and were surprised to discover that (a) Anthropic had not done it at all, and (b) in fact no one else had done it yet. And then they didn't want to give an Anthropic employee coauthor credit for work that OpenAI had done, which idk seems pretty fair?
Post reply on HN