21–30 of 64 posts
Who on earth reads 2 pages of an all-text article, and decides at that point “you know what, I want to watch a video; oh good, here is the article in video form, just when I needed it!”?
I can read the 2 pages in ~30s or so. How long is the video? 15m? Nah.
Edit: video is 37 minutes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
>were surprised to discover that (a) Anthropic had not done it at all They were surprised another competitor had not wastefully thrown $20 million+ worth of compute at a problem they had no business solving in the first place? That's reaching, imho.
I feel like this whole thing hinges on one point. OAI says[0]: > However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced). How true is this? If the implied statement is true (i.e. OAI couldn't have stolen results because the results were so different anyways), then I feel like it's pretty clear that OAI solved the problem on their own, and offer…
I am supposing it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Bubeck
This is terrible:
When Buckmaster pushed to make the dispute public, he says that Bubeck replied: “Why would you ruin your career?” Buckmaster says that when he pushed back, Bubeck followed up with: “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>were surprised to discover that (a) Anthropic had not done it at all They were surprised another competitor had not wastefully thrown $20 million+ worth of compute at a problem they had no business solving in the first place? That's reaching, imho.
Why is it wasteful to solve one of the most famous problems in modern mathematics? And why would one particular company have no business solving it in the first place?
They didn't know what they were doing and they pumped a bunch more carbon into our atmosphere because hubris basically.
Shame on them.
I feel like this whole thing hinges on one point. OAI says[0]: > However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced). How true is this? If the implied statement is true (i.e. OAI couldn't have stolen results because the results were so different anyways), then I feel like it's pretty clear that OAI solved the problem on their own, and offer…
Agree! We have both published solutions now; someone (AI?) should be able to analyze their methods and see how similar they are
OpenAI has been behind in the AI race since last November. They have been playing catch-up.
They recently released Astra and declared it is AGI. Now they are desperate for anything they can use as evidence for that claim.
In other words: they had clear motive to do anything they could to steal the glory from prominent mathematicians who worked hard on this problem and solved it. And they also cannot prove that said mathematician's data was not accessed by either the model or the OAI users prompting the model.
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.