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More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math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

101–110 of 844 posts

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#101

Post by madaxe_again »

znnajdla wrote: post #93
madaxe_again wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, he did. Marcel Grossmann. “It was Grossmann who emphasized the importance of a non-Euclidean geometry called Riemannian geometry (also elliptic geometry) to Einstein, which was a necessary step in the development of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Abraham Pais's book on Einstein suggests that Grossmann mentored Einstein in tensor theory as well. Grossmann introduced Einstein to the absolute differential…

Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about. Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientific history too based on your copy-pasted AI slop? It's so pointless talking to idiots who don't what they're talking about when they use AI, just because they think AI does everything, that reflects their own e…

That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you.

And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance.

And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#103

Post by bamb008 »

When Thom, the mathematician who now alleges plagiarism, posted his digestion [1] of OpenAI's construction of a non-sofic group, he does not mention the proof being familiar. He even calls the crucial argument clever, without noting he thought of it first. [1]https://mathoverflow.net/a/513885

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#104

Post by nirava »

thaway7388 wrote: post #91

This is the second wake up call. Big AI companies (all of Big IT Tech really) are in data gathering and processing business. Also known as “intelligence”. Their final “product” is not just a standalone ML model. They don’t need your data just to “improve their products and services”. They build a whole ecosystem and infrastructure around gathering all the knowledge in the world. Including private and secret knowledge…

This has been my line of thinking as well. I have developed a sort of paranoia when I'm working using AI on my projects. Who's to say Claude or OpenAI isn't using the final conclusion of all my ideas, trial and error, and adding it to their database of insights to be offered to the next subscriber for a price?

They have demonstrated both the intelligence at scale and the lack of morals for this to not be a problem at all.

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

#105

Post by winstonwinston »

giov4 wrote: post #67
dakolli wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hilarious how people think they care about their reputation, and wouldn't circumvent ZDR policies. Like bro, they literally covertly hired Apple employees and had them steal IP and equipment form Apple. They aren't scared of Apple lawyers, so they definitely aren't scared of yours.

what the point and usefulness of the comments above? we shouldn't be surprised? is normal to steal? hiring apple employees? can you realize what this means? focus on this part: "If his account is correct, this is not a minor dispute over attribution. It would mean that unpublished human work was absorbed into a model and then presented to the world as a breakthrough by the model itself" don't threat this as a minor d…

Don’t they openly state that their product may cause IP issues but that is fine because they will take care of your legal problems caused by their product?

In the end, it’s not them stealing, it’s the AI doing stealing. What kind of moral compass are we talking about?

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

#106

Post by calf »

dakolli wrote: post #51
bambax wrote: post #37

All the big AI labs were built on stealing IP; who is surprised that's still how they operate? And who believes, or has ever believed, their promises that your data is private and not logged, etc.? The big AI labs are not trying to advance humanity, they are in this for the money, and as most (all?) private companies they don't care about ethics at all. That doesn't mean they can't be useful, or that their products a…

It's hilarious how people think they care about their reputation, and wouldn't circumvent ZDR policies. Like bro, they literally covertly hired Apple employees and had them steal IP and equipment form Apple. They aren't scared of Apple lawyers, so they definitely aren't scared of yours.

Also how quickly the discourse forgets, literally that was a month ago.

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

#107

Post by glimshe »

Why are people here jumping so quickly to conclusions? I have no doubt OpenAI is capable of doing this, but right now there's no credible evidence, only claims.

This kind of "they stole from me through AI training!" accusation will soon start being used against other AI users, not necessarily the providers.

All it will take is a mastodon post. And shortly after, we will also see the next iteration of copyright legal trolling.

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

#108

Post by calf »

madaxe_again wrote: post #101
znnajdla wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about. Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientific history too based on your copy-pasted AI slop? It's so pointless talking to idiots who don't what they're talking about when they use AI, just because they think AI does everything, that reflects their own e…

That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you. And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance. And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?

So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy.

To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.

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

#109

Post by olalonde »

Planktonne wrote: post #79
olalonde wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unethical doesn't mean irrational. They'd be risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust if they got caught lying about this. Doesn't seem worth it.

They've done similar things with similar risks repeatedly.

Example?

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

#110

Post by madaxe_again »

calf wrote: post #108
madaxe_again wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you. And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance. And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?

So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.

Actually, my undergraduate degree was physics and philosophy. And yes, synthesis is synthesis whether a human, a machine, or a duck does it, and people prompt one another all the time - “have you thought about trying X?” Or “I need the TPS report by EOB”.

I suppose my underlying point is that human cognition is not the unique and beautiful thing that we anthropocentrically suppose it to be - it is a physical process, with stochastic outcomes. Much like transformers.

Me, I’m just a machine made of meat. You can suppose yourself to be God’s perfect creation, and that’s your right, but I disagree.

Post reply on HN