See https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/ for the announcement this refers to.
More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
21–30 of 844 posts
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#22This is a really weak claim. The evidence they offer is just "someone somewhere says they had a discussion with AI about the topic at some point". They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.
The AI only seem to solve the problems that it had human trading data on… If this wasn’t human driven, I’d expect to see other problems within that problem. Space solved not just the ones that it had chat data on.
There have been about 6-8 major math breakthroughs claimed by AI. Only for 2 of them there are public accusations about the training data.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#23Gonna need grants for local models. Its happening. OpenAI and Anthropic models are powerful but are rapidly approaching the good ol trust thermocline.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#24Some mathematicians I know who've been following this have realized that they'd all gotten some emails from people they now know to be affiliated with OpenAI/Anthropic asking questions about their research in a way that seemed like scooping attempts. Also, a lot of my mathematicians buddies have reported students basically asking if it's worth ever doing grad school for pure math, and even very motivated students are…
One has nothing to do with the other.
It was long predicted that math and software developments would be the first domain where AI was going to do major damage.
If OpenAI and Anthropic didn't get into math result dick measuring, Internet anons would have in their place, 6 months later when it got cheaper.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#25Only after reading this post did I learn that my preferred AI trains on my inputs (prompts).
How was I not aware of this before?
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#26Only after reading this post did I learn that my preferred AI trains on my inputs (prompts). How was I not aware of this before?
AI is also trained on your HN posts. And lots of other things you post on the internet.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#27[flagged]
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#28The real annoying thing it seems is mostly that openai is presumably doing this for internal reasons and this marginally increases the cost to users with no real gain.
It would be one thing to gain from it but removing prestige wins from customers AND reducing compute support just feels like being ultra mean if you zoom out.
If this was racing to cure cancer ahead of researchers we wouldn't be writing about this on HN.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#29It’s crazy to me that companies/researchers share important data with these AI labs, you’re basically giving them your secret sauce which they then share with all of your competitors via training on conversations. At the same time I don’t really know alternatives other than a slightly less than frontier local LLM. Not sure how good they are at math.
Or start competing with you.
Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math
#30Doing some research and at this point doing it very much in the open with dates on GitHub so if any AI Lab says they re-discover my exact work it will be obvious that the AI used or was trained on my work. I am guessing anyone in a similar situation is now thinking about how they date their existing work if the math is done, but the proses are not.
That is what arxiv is about. We have been facing the same problem with review processes by before. Nothing all too specific here.