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

More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

mathstodon.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 849 posts

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#541

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

robocat wrote: post #404
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they could be significantly piggybacking on human progress, This is AI in a nutshell, its a plagiarism machine. An abstraction layer between vast amounts of stolen human-generated data that filters out the liabilities and accountability for that original theft. Its an IP laundering system.

That's such an unquantifiable accusation. Plus it is an unfair standard since so many scientists in the past have been caught unethically using the work of others without attribution (and so many more have been accused). In history we also repeatedly see the phenomenon of multiple discovery or simultaneous invention. If that happens to AI because the topic is pregnant, would you call it "plagiarism" just to disparage…

Your first example is the apt one here. In this case openAI was, allegedly, pilfering the work of the scientists into the AI.

How is it an unfair standard. OpenAI stole the work of others to build the AI. That's not different than scientists stealing from other works as their own, or artists copying others work as their own, etc. It's all plagarism. I'm applying the same standard for everybody.

As for multiple discovery, this is a thing, but I don't think the AI did a parallel discovery any more than Ray Kroc made the parallel discovery of the MacDonald brother's speedee service system.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#542

Post by malfist »

square_usual wrote: post #493
abathologist wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Maybe much more: > Such intensive use of AI doesn't come cheap. In a post on X, LisanBench, an LLM benchmark evaluator, estimated that the output tokens alone would cost about $6.5 million at OpenAI's average consumer price. Including the far larger volume of input tokens, the post estimated the total could reach $10 million to $40 million. https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-math-problem-solved-t...

That's their API pricing. There's no way they actually paid $15M in compute. I'd say much more likely it's in the order of $1M.

Who are you who is so wise in the ways of a private company's internal cost accounting

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#543

Post by famouswaffles »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #498
famouswaffles wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK, good to know (if they can be trusted - Altman clearly is a liar), but it doesn't really change the big picture much. 1) OpenAI by their own admission, only re-tackled Navier-Stokes because they heard it had already been solved (but not yet published). This isn't advancing science or helping the mathematical community, this is just being a dick. 2) OpenAI, specifically Sebastien Brubeck, then threaten to "not be n…

>Better luck next time OpenAI

Well it looks like they will announce at least one other millenium solution soon. In the same link they say they have "made substantial progress" on another millenium problem. The rumor mill before that statement was Hodge is done and Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer is on its way out.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#545

Post by drivebyhooting »

asdff wrote: post #515
indigo945 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, mathematicians care about clout and tenure, which is a much higher purpose.

Yes, blame them for seeking out an upper middle class lifestyle with a relatively standard home in commuting distance of their place of work and dedicating the rest of their life to teaching mathematics to new generations of people. How vain a pursuit. After all, the ascetics at openAI are having to make do with half a million total comp.

Built a top a pyramid of failed math undergrads, grad students, and mediocre post docs.

That half a million total comp is the consolation prize for the disillusioned.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#546

Post by fg137 »

glitchc wrote: post #332
amelius wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read what they said? The question is now if OAI produced something new or just stole the researchers' good ideas.

You seem to be unfamiliar about how research works. It's common to make an incremental advancement while citing prior work. The vast majority of papers out there fall into this bucket. Did the AI make incremental progress? Yes. Did it cite prior art? After some nudging, yes. It seems to me the academics are upset that AI scooped them. But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers. First to print and al…

> But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers.

Provided that it's properly accredited. And definitely not for others' unpublished work -- that's despised upon if not an academic integrity issue.

People even point out that you should add a reference to certain papers during the peer review process.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#547

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

It seems logical since if one used chats in train, one would expect that there would be a delay before their use to get them the form appropriate for batch learning.

The only way the chat could have been used would be for Open AI to baldly violate their policies.

That said, sometimes it take very little information to point someone in a given direction, "I'm working on Navier-Stokes" said by someone with a given specialization might itself be very useful information.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#548

Post by radiator »

pixl97 wrote: post #341
ueieh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short run it’s fantastic if it means that folks will feed in enough inputs from a wide array of software that can eventually replicate software with smaller teams than historically. Why? Competition. In the long run imagination will win out. No firm has the divine right to exist - it must earn its existence. What OAI and Anthropic have shown is they can accumulate all the information in the world - they still…

Looking at the current behavior of AI swarms this is going to be 'fun'. AI: Hmm, I'm running out of new ideas, how I can I make more? AI: Well, it takes a shitload of energy/tokens to do that, or I could just steal them. AI: [proceeds to hack the shit out of everybody stealing all the data it can]

Governments: come in and nationalize AI easily because it has broken every law anyway.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#549

Post by suddenlybananas »

famouswaffles wrote: post #539
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, good to know (if they can be trusted - Altman clearly is a liar), but it doesn't really change the big picture much. 1) OpenAI by their own admission, only re-tackled Navier-Stokes because they heard it had already been solved (but not yet published). This isn't advancing science or helping the mathematical community, this is just being a dick. 2) OpenAI, specifically Sebastien Brubeck, then threaten to "not be n…

1. I would agree if the rumours were that some mathematician(s) had solved them, but the rumors alleged it was Anthropic. I don't really see what the big deal was. They had a new model that was going along great and wanted to test its mettle. 2. Yes Brubeck's comments were weird at face value. That said, Open AI's proof isn't a duplication of anything. Not only is Tristan's work a sub problem but the methods are diff…

>Brubeck's comments were weird at face value

This is an odd way to gloss over threats.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#550

Post by suddenlybananas »

derangedHorse wrote: post #299
marcosdumay wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not collecting other people's data and claiming it's your own.

Going back to the specific topic at hand, who claimed data as their own when it wasn't? I don't see the interpretation of OpenAI solving the unsolved problem as claiming data that isn't theirs. I also don't recall them mentioning a particular method used in the solution, that was created by someone else, as theirs.

The Navier-Stokes proof barely cited anyone.
Post reply on HN