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

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#41

Post by demibabs »

avree wrote: post #16
demibabs wrote: post #9

This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existenc... Going off the believable citations in the wiki page here, it seems more complicated than "who solved it", as there's a mathematician, Anthropic, and OpenAI having a priority dispute.

I’m well aware of the dispute, and OpenAI’s conduct has definitely been less than respectable.

But when the central claim of the argument (that OpenAI and the researchers solved the same problem) is completely false, it’s hard to take the article seriously.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#42

Post by andriy_koval »

rsfern wrote: post #40
andriy_koval wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there was really no bad behavior, why not post the whole thing? what is whole thing?..

The screen cap of their full correspondence in the Twitter thread, which was the subject of the preceding sentence. The Twitter post has an obviously incomplete fragment of the conversation that doesn’t resolve what the author presents it as resolving, which is the dispute over how the discussion of authorship of Alpöge actually went down

I read Tristan's allegation from https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf, and he didn't make it clear if threats to him were made over email, texts, calls or during personal meetings, so it is not clear if the whole thing was in writing.

He mentioned that they had meetings:

I asked to speak the following week. On Friday, September 4th, I was asked whether I could meet that day; I again said the following week. At 12:45 on Sunday, September 6th, I was asked whether I could meet “at any point today.” Sebastien Bubeck joined. The three of us spoke twice that afternoon. Levent was not on the calls.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#43

Post by biglost »

cyanydeez wrote: post #20
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.

why not just solve world hunger while we're blowing smoke.,

That's solved, but the solution is not applied yet

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#44

Post by jsLavaGoat »

cratermoon wrote: post #4
jsLavaGoat wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI derangement syndrome is amazing. The researchers were also using AI so we're really just arguing over how much AI is allowed. But somehow a lean-verified proof that came first doesn't count because reasons. If you have been involved in academia in any way, you know this happens all the time because the field is nearing a breakthrough, not a single person.

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...

It’s just a coincidence the other team had an Anthropoc employee on it, I’m sure.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#45

Post by jsLavaGoat »

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,…

As alleged by the team with the Anthropic employee.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#46

Post by jsLavaGoat »

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…

Come on this is all just pure copium from people who swallowed this hook line and sinker.

The worst thing anyone mustered about this is it was a breach of the cordial way mathematicians treat each other.

OpenAI solved Navier Stokes and that’s all anyone will remember about this no matter how mad people are about it and no matter how much they’re coping that they “stole” it.

Newsflash: team Anthropic was using AI too full of people’s “stolen” content.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#48

Post by cyanydeez »

biglost wrote: post #43
cyanydeez wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not just solve world hunger while we're blowing smoke.,

That's solved, but the solution is not applied yet

that's like telling people you've solve long extant math equations.

Applicationis the hard part.

Post reply on HN