Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

read.misalignedmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#21

Post by andriy_koval »

psvv wrote: post #19
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs seem to be much better at finding counterexamples than other types of proof. It’s unlikely the other millennium problems will be solved with counter examples

I haven't been keeping up with all the math proofs. Does anyone know if there have been any LLM proofs that are NOT counterexamples?

likely there are some, the question if its "millennial" type problems.

Also, lots of hype around "millennial" grading, it is kinda funny if we solve all "millennial" problems in first 30 yeas of millenia.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#22

Post by simianwords »

TitusCaius wrote: post #15
imjonse wrote: post #6

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

Though they claim the contrary, it looks that OpenAI would get nowhere if it did not have information about a recent breakthrough.

Comment that will age poorly

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#23

Post by simianwords »

zaubarari wrote: post #5
lcubw wrote: post #2

OpenAI claims to have solved a decades old mathematical problem just as researchers are about to publish about their solution. Coincidence?

It's just a desperate attempt to prove how grandiose their new model is

Yeah how desperate to literally solve a Millenium problem? They sure look stupid now. You’ve caught them!

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#24

Post by andriy_koval »

aedfhgaerty wrote: post #14
elevatedastalt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the evidence is not damning at all. The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are makin…

>The evidence is a combination of two things And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). >many have "Use this data to improve" setting on. Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct,…

> And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely).

yeah, its not "we know" but "Buckmaster said this".

People lie often, not sure why we would presume unconditional innocence of one side in this case.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#25

Post by arjie »

lcubw wrote: post #2

OpenAI claims to have solved a decades old mathematical problem just as researchers are about to publish about their solution. Coincidence?

Their claim is that they put it to the task after hearing about rumors that Anthropic had gotten there. So not a coincidence in any telling of the tale.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#26

Post by freejazz »

simianwords wrote: post #23
zaubarari wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a desperate attempt to prove how grandiose their new model is

Yeah how desperate to literally solve a Millenium problem? They sure look stupid now. You’ve caught them!

They do look pretty stupid right now, actually.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#27

Post by freejazz »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #8
cratermoon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we're arguing over whether or not openai stole the other researcher's work. The evidence is pretty damning. https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-car...

Actually the evidence is not damning at all. The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are makin…

>and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ."

Legally safe? Forensic level guarantee? Since when do they make those kinds of statements? Talk about moving the goalposts. Those are clear weasel-words from OpenAI, I'm shocked by the people who don't realize this.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#28

Post by samuelknight »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #18
imjonse wrote: post #6

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

LLMs seem to be much better at finding counterexamples than other types of proof. It’s unlikely the other millennium problems will be solved with counter examples

Finding counter examples might be easier, but AI's also useful for assisting in creating proofs. For example, Anthropic just published a formalization of Fermat's last theorem a few days ago, something that human researchers have been working on for decades.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#29

Post by aedfhgaerty »

andriy_koval wrote: post #24
aedfhgaerty wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The evidence is a combination of two things And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). >many have "Use this data to improve" setting on. Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct,…

> And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). yeah, its not "we know" but "Buckmaster said this". People lie often, not sure why we would presume unconditional innocence of one side in this case.

https://xcancel.com/sebastienbubeck/status/20973794116915163...

>It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work.

>I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations].

Maybe Buckmaster exaggerated the threatening tone and maybe Levent doesn't actually deserve authorship. But he wasn't lying.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#30

Post by andriy_koval »

aedfhgaerty wrote: post #29
andriy_koval wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely). yeah, its not "we know" but "Buckmaster said this". People lie often, not sure why we would presume unconditional innocence of one side in this case.

https://xcancel.com/sebastienbubeck/status/20973794116915163... >It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. >I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand wh…

> But he wasn't lying.

and we know this how?

Post reply on HN