751–760 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of those statements sound true, based on what I've heard. - "very little human" input feels ambiguous, and if someone spends a few days prompting a model to solve a super hairy problem requiring a 100-page proof, I can understand reasonable people interpreting that as both "very little" and "not very little" human input - it's all true that a team worked on this, a bunch of compute was burned, and the problem was…
>> I'm not sure how any of this provides evidence that OpenAI took any of their work. Sorry, but the burden of proof lies in the other direction: OpenAI needs to definitively prove that their agents did not look at the existing work that was about to be published. Otherwise OpenAI simply stole the glory and the spotlight (and I'm being charitable here).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I was shown a prompt and told the internal research model had simply been given the problem statement. Levent had been told by Sebastien “very little human input” had been used. This turned out not to be true. Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a num…
All of those statements sound true, based on what I've heard. - "very little human" input feels ambiguous, and if someone spends a few days prompting a model to solve a super hairy problem requiring a 100-page proof, I can understand reasonable people interpreting that as both "very little" and "not very little" human input - it's all true that a team worked on this, a bunch of compute was burned, and the problem was…
I'm not coming from a place of distrust here. This should just be definitively answerable given the weight of the claims here. Surely between you, your lawyers, and other members of your team you can just clear this part up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the goal was not to scoop them, why did openai put a massive team on this, working weekends, only after they heard rumors of the solution?
Clearly The goal was to scoop Anthropic not a single researcher. OpenAI heard the rumor that Anthropic solved an open problem. So they went nuts pulling all plugs to scoop them. Turns out it wasn’t actually Anthropic and just a researcher with a single Anthropic guy friend working on it . Wild times
In chess, a grandmaster just needs to know at what moment in a game there's a critical move to gain a significant advantage over their opponent. They don't need to know the move itself. OpenAI got wind that a millenium problem was being solved. And that feels a bit like the critical move in chess. That is - it was a signal that AI advanced far enough that it would be worth spending a lot of time and resources solving…
The weak point in this is: how do you evaluate if a partial result is promising? If this cost ~$10M as suggested elsewhere in the thread, probably not even OpenAI can just throw that at everything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not make it ethical
Isnt the entire history of academic progress iterating on work that other academics shared with you? Obviously this situation is spicy but openAI cited their work no?
>The groups varied in size, and the group that produced the Navier–Stokes resolution involved on the order of 10,000 concurrent agents… The agents arrived at their resolution on Saturday, September 5, about 88 hours after the first agents were launched. The Millenium Prize is $1M, what is the ROI? (Edit: since I was not clear, and confused some - I mean for a hypothetical of a third party paying commercial rates to u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of those statements sound true, based on what I've heard. - "very little human" input feels ambiguous, and if someone spends a few days prompting a model to solve a super hairy problem requiring a 100-page proof, I can understand reasonable people interpreting that as both "very little" and "not very little" human input - it's all true that a team worked on this, a bunch of compute was burned, and the problem was…
I'm confused, your employer very directly stated that they are unable to confirm that the model was not trained on the conversations.
It's unknowable and not possible to prove if any one specific conversation was the key to solving Navier–Stokes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of goalpost moving is insane. "Yeah it can solve Millenium problems, but can it do it with nothing more than a one sentence prompt?" Also there are proofs where the only human steering was "keep going".
Parent comment is claiming creativity and genius beyond human experts, so why not ask for a fully unassisted AI novel result? Having access to the entire corpus of human knowledge, what else such amazing entity would require to solve a hard problem by its own? Any result of such kind from an AI alone would be enough to refute my argument, yet you don't present any. >Also there are proofs where the only human steering…
>Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is going to be dramatic in so many different ways. - First off, to reiterate, WOW. - Second of all, when does this end? Are we at the dawn of the singularity now? - People are saying OpenAI "stole" this from the work of an OpenAI user. If so, that's pretty fucked - how can we trust them? - Time to think about retiring from any knowledge work or business? This could be winner-take-all where a leading lab can butt…
It's incredible to me that every single time there's a new model people scream "singularity" from the rooftops and every time they are wrong. This is an impressive result, but there is absolutely zero evidence of "the singularity".