More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

red75prime wrote: post #368

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Internal OpenAI models are reportedly solving open problems at a surprisingly fast rate[2] Maybe I'm failing to read that graph properly but the y axis says "pass rate" and it only goes up to 0.5. That would mean every single problem is at most half-solved. I don't know what that means though. What is "0.5 pass rate" in the context of "open math problems" (as in the graph title)?

I guess it's a fraction of problems on which a model produces a LEAN proof or a counterexample.

Post by aaronharnly » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

nautilus12 wrote: post #356

btilly wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. See https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison?from... . 250 documents ingested from somewhere is enough to become part of the knowledge of a model of arbitrarily large size. I would expect that a good idea that fits in a framework that is already being ingested would be more easily taken up than some random thing unassociated with anything else. Could that go down to a single transcript? If the mod…

Thats not what they are asking. This paper is discussing documents in the training dataset poisoning the LLM for malicious behavior. This person are asking if anyone has deliberately put something in a private chat (presumably with retrain on my data turned off), to see if they can get it to leak across sessions from distinct users. I am positive this happens but I have not seen the proof. I also want to know the ans…

Post by bena » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 5:56 PM UTC

famouswaffles wrote: post #371

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI said they sicced this agent army on Navier-Stokes on Sept 1st, while only a couple of days earlier OpenAI's Noam Brown happened to reply to a tweet saying that they had already tried to solve all the Millennium Prize problems and failed... So, it seems either the previous attempt didn't have the training to succeed, or was just not given the compute to do so. Once OpenAI heard that Navier-Stokes was solved, th…

OpenAI have come out and said: >The Wednesday evening statement from OpenAI was more emphatic: “We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training.” >The statement added, “After investigating, we can say with full confidence that no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system in any way…

Post by fweimer » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 6:04 PM UTC

sashank_1509 wrote: post #266

Both things can be true: 1. OpenAI when using your chats in pretraining is improving its model’s intuition. The model parameter size is massive, and while the data is OOM larger it is plausible that model remembers stuff about chats that improves its latent representation. 2. During RL on verifiable math and massive compute, the model discovers techniques and connections to solve math problems that are superhuman and…

Post by GPerson » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 6:04 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #361

GPerson wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very active open letter of over 1000 signatures from mathematicians in protest of this event. This event is targeting undergraduates. It previously suggested that math researchers already have no place in mathematics, and presents a limited and heavily distorted view of what mathematics research is.

I'm an AI skeptic, but I don't see how this squares with what the organisers of the event actually say. "It previously suggested that math researchers already have no place in mathematics"? I don't see this.