Especially in recent years the mathematics community has worked very much in good faith, and a lot of effort is spent trying to give appropriate credit for ideas. Even when ideas are discovered in parallel if it turns out that previous work contained the same essential idea it is by and far regarded as best practice to give priority in this case. The point, in good academic practice, is to maintain the health of the practice at large.
As Terence Tao explains in that post, the goal of mathematics is not only to solve big problems. And, even if one were very single-mindedly focused on solving big problems, it is still (in the long term) better to maintain the health of the community at large so that problems which are out of reach at the moment may be in reach again in the future. Good academic practice is one part of this culture.
This is actually bigger than that. This is an "AI is eating the world" situation.
The math community was one of the first to be affected because RLVR makes Math an easier target for AI. We witness AI eating the math community.
Software community was also affected due to similar and other reasons. All other professional communities will face a similar challenge in the near future.
Andrew Wiles gave 3 lectures, and only at the end of the last one he announced that he solved FLT. Imagine someone from the audience announced in between the second and the third lecture that they proved FLT (using his ideas, obviously).
If I were a business, I wouldn't want my proprietary business information into a hands of a competitor. But CEOs are racing to do it, and (at best) relying in flimsy contractual guarantees they have no means to verify.
Am I missing something obvious? Isn’t this just a simple DB query to see the state history of the “Data Controls” → “Improve model for everyone” toggle in the settings? Just report whether that was ever on and over what time period.
Multiple OpenAI staff have publicly said they cannot do that as accessing specific user settings without their consent (or legal requirement) violates their internal privacy policy.
However, the mathematicians could easily declare whether they had the toggle on or off. Yet curiously, they will not say!
It’s not about what they say but what they do and right now no frontier AI company deserves anything but skepticism based on how they act verse what they say.
Yes you're missing several obvious things. Even saving the last changed date (nevermind every change date or what the change was) for every setting for every user would be earth crushingly wasteful. The value by itself isn't even worth including in backups.
Storing the last changed date for every single person on earth (even though not every person is an OpenAI customer) is something you could easily do on a laptop. It would be a rounding error for OpenAI.
I don't know what format they use for storage, but Iceberg would be a reasonable choice. A date in iceberg format is 4 bytes[1]. I checked postgres as well as a reference point. It also uses 4 bytes for a date, so whatever they use it's going to be about that.
Current world population is just shy of 8.3 Billion people [2].
4 bytes times 8.3 billion people gives 30.92 GiB. [3] OpenAI's training data will be in the petabyte range at least.
If OpenAI remained a full nonprofit looking to build an "OPEN" AI for the benefit of all humanity (not only the US or a few shareholders), I would have been happy to share my code, my work, and even label their data... This said, I don't blame them. It's a difficult mission to remain a nonprofit and, at the same time, have the required capital investment to build AGI.
I'm not criticizing them, but I hope this race towards the first-best result or AGI doesn't blind them to making good decisions such as not using their users' data without consent.
Imagine what a genuinely openness-focused organization of this sort could be. Even if we imagined a commercial half, we could imagine a foundation with mass-membership, perhaps with a membership fee equal to 1/2 the typical personal subscription and functioning to set the direction, elect the board, etc., and then a commercial half which might be rough, tricky, deceptive, making deals with anybody.
I think I'd have been fine with the commercial half being a bit of a monster, as long as I'm part of the members and we decide what sort of board it gets and there's a clear "this is basically controlled by the public" and if I were part of a club of this sort, I would, like you absolutely fill up a directory with texts and computer programs and careful annotations to aid training.
and they could have had it. It could have been easy to make an organization like this. I think you still can. An international AI club, the members vote on what sort of training material may be supplied and for what intents, create some committees to review quality, and then everyone starts making their little games and RL environments and annotated stories and programs that ordinary LLMs misunderstand, and then they get together and fine-tune something, and if that works well they then get some staff and better training infrastructure and end up with a commercial half.
I was trying to patent our maintenance tracking algorithm, which produces guaranteed weight loss or gain within 2–4 weeks by producing accurate calorie and macro targets for people to follow; in our test, it beats GLP-1s like Ozempic, Tirzepatide, and Retatrutide in results.
But later we found that algorithm and math cannot be patented.
If I understand correctly OpenAI cannot provide it. Because the models are essentially black boxes, especially this far after the fact, determining if this result built on training data based on conversations about the problem is impossible. So unless they can prove those conversations were never used for training then there’s no way to know.
It might be a lost cause regardless, because this is under the assumption that we can trust OpenAI to be honest about their own investigation, which is unlikely.
Only under gross negligence would it be unprovable: Did you use a model whose training set included user data? Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
>Did you use a model whose training set included user data?
OpenAI, as with all AI companies, openly admits that it trains on user data unless the user opts out. But the mathematicians have not said whether or not they opted out.
>Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
>>Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
> They have already explicitly denied this.
AFAICT they only denied accessing data through a request targeting a user, not that they accessed (users) data through targeting (an extremely niche) topic, which is the relevant part here.
So, unless I'm mistaken, a "result including user data" is very much still in the air.
What the mathematicians could do is reveal whether they had the data-sharing opt-out on or not. But curiously, as far as I've seen, none of them will answer that question!
Well that assumes OpenAI respects that setting. Given some of the company’s ethical challenges to date that’s not something folks are willing to just assume is happening.
See other post today about where OpenAI keeps flipping the toggle back to “share.” Even if it was technically turned on, the dark patterns that are clearly trying to override the obvious intent of the user are deeply unethical.
How does OpenAI’s respect (or lack thereof) for the setting change whether the people involved could say whether they had opted out of training? They comment you replied to noted that none of them had shared that info. How are they blocked from doing so?
And its reasonable to assume that if they did, in fact, opt out, they'd make it clear.
Most people do not understand that the main reason for the subscriptions is to give OpenAI and Anthropic the priceless, unique data that shows how the models are used, what people are building, how they are building, which solutions they consider OK, which they consider bad -- they purchase this data with cheap tokens. This is their only moat, really. If some really proprietary IP gets swept in the training data set its not really OpenAI's fault -- its the researchers'. Have something secretive? Dont fricking paste this into chatgpt. Duh!
(I'd definitely not think OpenAI/Anthropic ignore the opt outs, or ZDRs. All it would take is one whistleblower to get them into terminal troubles. And why would they do it? They are not in the business of scooping unique IP -- they are in the business of understanding how AI is used across a variety of mundane, day to day work of individuals and companies. Useless math problem is good (or bad, as in this case) PR, but otherwise entirely worthless for the labs.
When you want your unpublished work unpublished, don't store them on other peoples computers. Especially not on people their job it is to use data to create money.
Would this data moved through a hack to ChatGPT, this would be another thing, but like this. No pity at all.
Do I understand it right that people now claim an ownership of the actual mathematical methods? What next, people patenting the letters and the numbers? And then the sounds? This starts going ridiculous.
A lot depends on the concreteness/vagueness of the idea.
"Just use some polynomial" would be an idea so generic that it wouldn't merit attribution. "Just use a cyclotomic polynomial of degree 24" is a lot more concrete.
(I have no idea where the exact limit lies and I have no idea how precise or vague were the ideas in those discussions.)
These kinds of responses aren't helpful. Your response essentially muddies the water because it sets an artificial standard that nobody can/will meet. Yes, you're correct. There likely is some grey area with how we decide to give credit. Are we talking about the same story? This isn't "a polynomial". This is a research program that has been ongoing for years or possibly decades with nontrivial contributions. If you're not sure what does or does not deserve credit, you should engage with the community instead of suggesting that the idea of giving credit is "vague".
Hashing out a problem is a complicated thing. From the point of the AI, or another person, even a negative suggestion ("I tried computing those Jacobians and they showed nothing of value") can be very helpful in steering you away from non-productive paths, but we rarely attribute such negative suggestions in print, we may not even remember them.
All in all I think that OpenAI should have mentioned using material from those people, but I would also like to know what material and to what extent.
Because in academia, your name and your body of work is a big deal that can open or close doors, and assigning credit is an important part of it. This isn't a new thing/exclusive to the AI era either.
I don’t think it is people being possessive but rather people finding their value over the work they do (sentence ended up being weird but I hope the idea is clear).
So I see someone dedicating a sizeable portion of their life on a discovery and not being credited is the problem here. Otherwise it would be published in a journal anyway.
When you put a unpublished sizeable portion of your life in a ChatGPT window, then it's your own fault. I trust these AI companies as far as I can throw one of their data centers.
When your work is unimportant enough for you to not setup a local AI, just shut up.
a quote from the article: "Thom said it “would be ethically indefensible” if nonpublic research supplied by users helped to improve models that the company then used to race those very same users to publication, without consent, proper disclosure, or credit."
Would one of this users tell their opponents what he is doing? And if yes, would anyone wonder when the opponent would use this information. Be dumb, win dumb prices.
Walk me through how the sofic result OpenAI publixhed profits OpenAI but had no benefit to humanity? Why were Thom and others working on it if it had no value?
We've had the end result all along without OpenAI. All this technology does is, for a subscription fee, adds a middleman who you can talk to naturally. How does that which solely uses all the technology preceding it, is by itself a benefit to humanity? Get your head out of the stock market, AI is by design not creating anything new.
There was an other thread on HN where apparently OpenAI promised one of the author half of the prize money IF they remove their co-author (that works for Anthropic) from their paper.
This kind of bribing attempt doesn't seem to come from the "good side"
Not defending it but in academia credit and attribution can be big deals. Some people are motivated by money, some by fame, some by satisfaction from doing the work, some by recognition, most by some mix.
OpenAI is the possessive actor here. They were supposed to develop the AI for the benefit of humanity. Now they do it closed and do it only for their private profit.
As I lay dying here in this basement surrounded by my art, without food or basic necessities as I have given up all thought of material comfort in hopes of bettering the lives of others, I too wonder why others do not follow my example and live with no thought of their own comforts or position in society and strive to do things that may somehow benefit the species as a whole, especially the Billionaire part of that species.
Why are people so greedy? Why can't they wait to be given something, or remain content without, rather than take from others by force? I'm genuinely curious too.
Animalistic survival desires under conditions of engineered scarcity and reduced awareness. Compounded with powerful need for consistency - to keep everything this way.
Anyone with a decent amount of social power is aware and skilled at maintaining these conditions whether consciously or not.
The praxes are non-trivial: awareness, bravery, flexibility, and seflessness.
This could be summarized as "unhealthy competition."
They are releasing their work for the profit of the humanity. They do not like OpenAI claiming credit for it. After all, profit of the humanity and profit of the OpenAI are two different things. Maybe even mutually exclusive at this point.
And lying about whether the proof was done by mathematicians or OpenAI is bad humanity, so.
If you run a model locally to work on your area of expertise in mathematics, and you make a discovery, haven't you stood on the shoulders of others that created that model you are using? Playing devil's advocate here, are we only in for human collaboration, but not machine contributions in this case? Scholars get cited, but do they normally get paid for others citing them and using their work to advance their own? I get the whole sneakiness about how these companies like OpenAI built their models upon IP and data without a clear trail of attribution or compensation where it would normally be present. I am not a proponent for either side at the moment. I am trying to grapple with this whole new world of shared knowledge and how it is produced and shared and profited from especially when there is a $1m prize to distribute!
There’s always been a distinction between published work and unpublished.
If my friend showed me some unpublished work (Say 90% of the hardest work toward a significant proof) if I then go finish the remaining 10% and publish the whole thing as mine it isn’t ‘building on the shoulders of giants’ it’s plagiarism/theft.
If he’d published that work first and I took it and found another proof and credited him for his work via citation then that would be fine.
We shouldn't forget that the only way this unpublished research is supposedly getting into the training data in the first place is because the researchers making the accusations were conversing with ChatGPT in the process of doing their own research on these problems.
But if they are saying this contaminated the model's training data with knowledge of their ideas, who's to say the model they were developing their research ideas with wasn't already contaminated through prior discussions with other researchers about the same topics?
So if contamination is proved, or cannot be disproved, and if these researchers want OpenAI to relinquish its claim to have solved these problems independently, then it would seem they also have to give up their claim to have solved them independently?
1. Tristan's research direction was known to only a handful of other academics. It might help if you can be more specific regarding the origin of the contamination.
2. If someone did come out and claim that their ideas were used without proper attribution in Tristan's work, then of course, that deserves consideration.
3. What you're suggesting seems purely hypothetical. At present, there is nobody claiming that Tristan's work is "contaminated"
4. Tristan was very willing in his initial statement to give credit to the people who developed the ideas.
This. I don't like people using others' work without giving proper credit. At the same time, people are jumping too quickly to defend these mathematicians without any solid evidence of their claims, while framing this as some sort of "Evil AI Company vs human mathematicians".
In the best case scenario, the mathematicians were standing on the shoulders of the extensive training data from sources that aren't being credited and they may not even have had access to.
I have nothing against these mathematicians because I don't know them. And given that, there's no reason to trust their word any more than OpenAI's.
It's possible the work they were doing, even if related, was a dead end and immaterial to OpenAI's findings. Or maybe they are right and OpenAI stole their work. Who knows the truth right now?
In other words, we need more evidence before making accusations.
Here is some (adjacent, but relevant) context, which has been posted elsewhere but I think is worthwhile to mention again here:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560
Especially in recent years the mathematics community has worked very much in good faith, and a lot of effort is spent trying to give appropriate credit for ideas. Even when ideas are discovered in parallel if it turns out that previous work contained the same essential idea it is by and far regarded as best practice to give priority in this case. The point, in good academic practice, is to maintain the health of the practice at large.
As Terence Tao explains in that post, the goal of mathematics is not only to solve big problems. And, even if one were very single-mindedly focused on solving big problems, it is still (in the long term) better to maintain the health of the community at large so that problems which are out of reach at the moment may be in reach again in the future. Good academic practice is one part of this culture.
This is actually bigger than that. This is an "AI is eating the world" situation.
The math community was one of the first to be affected because RLVR makes Math an easier target for AI. We witness AI eating the math community.
Software community was also affected due to similar and other reasons. All other professional communities will face a similar challenge in the near future.
Andrew Wiles gave 3 lectures, and only at the end of the last one he announced that he solved FLT. Imagine someone from the audience announced in between the second and the third lecture that they proved FLT (using his ideas, obviously).
Why is it OK if openAI does it?
> Why is it OK if openAI does it?
OpenAI has a lot of money, a lot of rich investors who want it to go to the moon, and an extensive propaganda operation.
It's a little like we've gone back to the problem of the customer becoming the product.
If I were a mathematician I would not my unpublished work to go into the hands of a competitor.
If I were a lawyer I wouldn't want private details of my defense to be made available to the prosecution. Anonymous or otherwise.
I wouldn't want the plot to an unreleased book to be suggested to another author.
If I were a business, I wouldn't want my proprietary business information into a hands of a competitor. But CEOs are racing to do it, and (at best) relying in flimsy contractual guarantees they have no means to verify.
[dead]
Am I missing something obvious? Isn’t this just a simple DB query to see the state history of the “Data Controls” → “Improve model for everyone” toggle in the settings? Just report whether that was ever on and over what time period.
Multiple OpenAI staff have publicly said they cannot do that as accessing specific user settings without their consent (or legal requirement) violates their internal privacy policy.
However, the mathematicians could easily declare whether they had the toggle on or off. Yet curiously, they will not say!
1. That's a misleading name for "take my secrets",
2. It's on by default,
3. Somebody says there's a second setting "don't train on my data", which is the real setting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49639743
It’s not about what they say but what they do and right now no frontier AI company deserves anything but skepticism based on how they act verse what they say.
The reply from OpenAI should have been "if you had the setting on yes, if not then no".
It was very weird on it's own almost like the setting didn't matter. Or the researcher was being dishonest with what they shared to The Verge
Yes you're missing several obvious things. Even saving the last changed date (nevermind every change date or what the change was) for every setting for every user would be earth crushingly wasteful. The value by itself isn't even worth including in backups.
Storing the last changed date for every single person on earth (even though not every person is an OpenAI customer) is something you could easily do on a laptop. It would be a rounding error for OpenAI.
I don't know what format they use for storage, but Iceberg would be a reasonable choice. A date in iceberg format is 4 bytes[1]. I checked postgres as well as a reference point. It also uses 4 bytes for a date, so whatever they use it's going to be about that.
Current world population is just shy of 8.3 Billion people [2].
4 bytes times 8.3 billion people gives 30.92 GiB. [3] OpenAI's training data will be in the petabyte range at least.
[1] https://iceberg.apache.org/spec/#schema-evolution
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/ and elsewhere, say census.gov if you want a US source https://www.census.gov/popclock/world
[3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=4+bytes+*+8.3+billion+i...
If OpenAI remained a full nonprofit looking to build an "OPEN" AI for the benefit of all humanity (not only the US or a few shareholders), I would have been happy to share my code, my work, and even label their data... This said, I don't blame them. It's a difficult mission to remain a nonprofit and, at the same time, have the required capital investment to build AGI.
I'm not criticizing them, but I hope this race towards the first-best result or AGI doesn't blind them to making good decisions such as not using their users' data without consent.
Same way for me.
Imagine what a genuinely openness-focused organization of this sort could be. Even if we imagined a commercial half, we could imagine a foundation with mass-membership, perhaps with a membership fee equal to 1/2 the typical personal subscription and functioning to set the direction, elect the board, etc., and then a commercial half which might be rough, tricky, deceptive, making deals with anybody.
I think I'd have been fine with the commercial half being a bit of a monster, as long as I'm part of the members and we decide what sort of board it gets and there's a clear "this is basically controlled by the public" and if I were part of a club of this sort, I would, like you absolutely fill up a directory with texts and computer programs and careful annotations to aid training.
and they could have had it. It could have been easy to make an organization like this. I think you still can. An international AI club, the members vote on what sort of training material may be supplied and for what intents, create some committees to review quality, and then everyone starts making their little games and RL environments and annotated stories and programs that ordinary LLMs misunderstand, and then they get together and fine-tune something, and if that works well they then get some staff and better training infrastructure and end up with a commercial half.
Looks like OpenAI's PR department woke up and put their main man heaney-555 to work on shaping public opinion.
Dude makes up like 50% of the replies here.
I was trying to patent our maintenance tracking algorithm, which produces guaranteed weight loss or gain within 2–4 weeks by producing accurate calorie and macro targets for people to follow; in our test, it beats GLP-1s like Ozempic, Tirzepatide, and Retatrutide in results.
But later we found that algorithm and math cannot be patented.
If I understand correctly OpenAI cannot provide it. Because the models are essentially black boxes, especially this far after the fact, determining if this result built on training data based on conversations about the problem is impossible. So unless they can prove those conversations were never used for training then there’s no way to know.
It might be a lost cause regardless, because this is under the assumption that we can trust OpenAI to be honest about their own investigation, which is unlikely.
Only under gross negligence would it be unprovable: Did you use a model whose training set included user data? Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
>Did you use a model whose training set included user data?
OpenAI, as with all AI companies, openly admits that it trains on user data unless the user opts out. But the mathematicians have not said whether or not they opted out.
>Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
They have already explicitly denied this.
>>Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
> They have already explicitly denied this.
AFAICT they only denied accessing data through a request targeting a user, not that they accessed (users) data through targeting (an extremely niche) topic, which is the relevant part here.
So, unless I'm mistaken, a "result including user data" is very much still in the air.
Or under strict privacy measures, maybe? When you are forbidden to connect a user and the user's data.
It's the 'conversations' of some mathematicians with OpenAI. So the question is: did anyone feed the conversation(s) back as training data.
What? Can they just look if they fetched certain documents/conversations and feeded them into the training loop?
You seem to be confusing context-fetching with training.
This is exactly the issue.
What the mathematicians could do is reveal whether they had the data-sharing opt-out on or not. But curiously, as far as I've seen, none of them will answer that question!
Well that assumes OpenAI respects that setting. Given some of the company’s ethical challenges to date that’s not something folks are willing to just assume is happening.
If you could prove that, it would be a gargantuan class-action lawsuit. And there would almost certainly be at least one whistleblower.
See other post today about where OpenAI keeps flipping the toggle back to “share.” Even if it was technically turned on, the dark patterns that are clearly trying to override the obvious intent of the user are deeply unethical.
How does OpenAI’s respect (or lack thereof) for the setting change whether the people involved could say whether they had opted out of training? They comment you replied to noted that none of them had shared that info. How are they blocked from doing so?
Andreas opted out on June 29th[0]. As discussed elsewhere on HN[1]
[0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240535270608201
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638353
Then none of his work after June 29 will be included in the training data.
What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
> Then none of his work after June 29 will be included in the training data.
What are you basing this on? The linked threads already acknowledged his opting out, and they don't look as settled as you claim.
One of them said they turned it off in June, back in the original mastodon thread.
Then none of his work after June will be included in the training data.
What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
And its reasonable to assume that if they did, in fact, opt out, they'd make it clear.
Most people do not understand that the main reason for the subscriptions is to give OpenAI and Anthropic the priceless, unique data that shows how the models are used, what people are building, how they are building, which solutions they consider OK, which they consider bad -- they purchase this data with cheap tokens. This is their only moat, really. If some really proprietary IP gets swept in the training data set its not really OpenAI's fault -- its the researchers'. Have something secretive? Dont fricking paste this into chatgpt. Duh!
(I'd definitely not think OpenAI/Anthropic ignore the opt outs, or ZDRs. All it would take is one whistleblower to get them into terminal troubles. And why would they do it? They are not in the business of scooping unique IP -- they are in the business of understanding how AI is used across a variety of mundane, day to day work of individuals and companies. Useless math problem is good (or bad, as in this case) PR, but otherwise entirely worthless for the labs.
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638353
Math is excluded from copyright. So you can use any piece of math you ever heard from anyone and publish it, whatever the context, I think.
When you want your unpublished work unpublished, don't store them on other peoples computers. Especially not on people their job it is to use data to create money.
Would this data moved through a hack to ChatGPT, this would be another thing, but like this. No pity at all.
Huh?
Re-using advances done by others is necessary in maths.
This is how hard sciences do progress.
undisclosed ones in this case
What's they were hacked and their current work in progress 'stolen'?
On my open source projects, there is always a big "WIP" messy phase which I don't "really" publish... because it is messy.
> they were hacked and their current work in progress 'stolen'
in most jurisdictions it'd constitute a crime.
[flagged]
Do I understand it right that people now claim an ownership of the actual mathematical methods? What next, people patenting the letters and the numbers? And then the sounds? This starts going ridiculous.
dude, proper attribution is part of scholarship and academics. Not giving credit to the people whose work led up to your solution is malpractice.
A lot depends on the concreteness/vagueness of the idea.
"Just use some polynomial" would be an idea so generic that it wouldn't merit attribution. "Just use a cyclotomic polynomial of degree 24" is a lot more concrete.
(I have no idea where the exact limit lies and I have no idea how precise or vague were the ideas in those discussions.)
These kinds of responses aren't helpful. Your response essentially muddies the water because it sets an artificial standard that nobody can/will meet. Yes, you're correct. There likely is some grey area with how we decide to give credit. Are we talking about the same story? This isn't "a polynomial". This is a research program that has been ongoing for years or possibly decades with nontrivial contributions. If you're not sure what does or does not deserve credit, you should engage with the community instead of suggesting that the idea of giving credit is "vague".
I used to be a young mathematician once.
Hashing out a problem is a complicated thing. From the point of the AI, or another person, even a negative suggestion ("I tried computing those Jacobians and they showed nothing of value") can be very helpful in steering you away from non-productive paths, but we rarely attribute such negative suggestions in print, we may not even remember them.
All in all I think that OpenAI should have mentioned using material from those people, but I would also like to know what material and to what extent.
wtf is wrong with you
Why are people so possessive? Why wouldn't they just release their work for the profit of humanity? I'm genuinely curious.
Because in academia, your name and your body of work is a big deal that can open or close doors, and assigning credit is an important part of it. This isn't a new thing/exclusive to the AI era either.
I have the same question, why OpenAI and Anthropic just don't release everything as open source?
Yeah, especially while Kimi, Deepseek, Qwen etc release everything as open source.
I don’t think it is people being possessive but rather people finding their value over the work they do (sentence ended up being weird but I hope the idea is clear).
So I see someone dedicating a sizeable portion of their life on a discovery and not being credited is the problem here. Otherwise it would be published in a journal anyway.
When you put a unpublished sizeable portion of your life in a ChatGPT window, then it's your own fault. I trust these AI companies as far as I can throw one of their data centers.
When your work is unimportant enough for you to not setup a local AI, just shut up.
a quote from the article: "Thom said it “would be ethically indefensible” if nonpublic research supplied by users helped to improve models that the company then used to race those very same users to publication, without consent, proper disclosure, or credit."
Would one of this users tell their opponents what he is doing? And if yes, would anyone wonder when the opponent would use this information. Be dumb, win dumb prices.
Because it's not humanity that profits, it's OpenAI.
Walk me through how the sofic result OpenAI publixhed profits OpenAI but had no benefit to humanity? Why were Thom and others working on it if it had no value?
We've had the end result all along without OpenAI. All this technology does is, for a subscription fee, adds a middleman who you can talk to naturally. How does that which solely uses all the technology preceding it, is by itself a benefit to humanity? Get your head out of the stock market, AI is by design not creating anything new.
Very simply put it's an advertisement for OpenAI.
Just like their "oops we hacked hugging face".
Everything OpenAI does is to drive hype. They aren't honest or a good actor but they sure have good hype.
1. Academic/research credit
2. There was a $1,000,000 reward
There was an other thread on HN where apparently OpenAI promised one of the author half of the prize money IF they remove their co-author (that works for Anthropic) from their paper.
This kind of bribing attempt doesn't seem to come from the "good side"
Not defending it but in academia credit and attribution can be big deals. Some people are motivated by money, some by fame, some by satisfaction from doing the work, some by recognition, most by some mix.
OpenAI is the possessive actor here. They were supposed to develop the AI for the benefit of humanity. Now they do it closed and do it only for their private profit.
As I lay dying here in this basement surrounded by my art, without food or basic necessities as I have given up all thought of material comfort in hopes of bettering the lives of others, I too wonder why others do not follow my example and live with no thought of their own comforts or position in society and strive to do things that may somehow benefit the species as a whole, especially the Billionaire part of that species.
Mathematicians are way more open about what they do than OpenAI is.
Why are people so greedy? Why can't they wait to be given something, or remain content without, rather than take from others by force? I'm genuinely curious too.
Animalistic survival desires under conditions of engineered scarcity and reduced awareness. Compounded with powerful need for consistency - to keep everything this way.
Anyone with a decent amount of social power is aware and skilled at maintaining these conditions whether consciously or not.
The praxes are non-trivial: awareness, bravery, flexibility, and seflessness.
This could be summarized as "unhealthy competition."
They are releasing their work for the profit of the humanity. They do not like OpenAI claiming credit for it. After all, profit of the humanity and profit of the OpenAI are two different things. Maybe even mutually exclusive at this point.
And lying about whether the proof was done by mathematicians or OpenAI is bad humanity, so.
I get the impression they have been LLM-psychosis'd into believing this
If you run a model locally to work on your area of expertise in mathematics, and you make a discovery, haven't you stood on the shoulders of others that created that model you are using? Playing devil's advocate here, are we only in for human collaboration, but not machine contributions in this case? Scholars get cited, but do they normally get paid for others citing them and using their work to advance their own? I get the whole sneakiness about how these companies like OpenAI built their models upon IP and data without a clear trail of attribution or compensation where it would normally be present. I am not a proponent for either side at the moment. I am trying to grapple with this whole new world of shared knowledge and how it is produced and shared and profited from especially when there is a $1m prize to distribute!
There’s always been a distinction between published work and unpublished.
If my friend showed me some unpublished work (Say 90% of the hardest work toward a significant proof) if I then go finish the remaining 10% and publish the whole thing as mine it isn’t ‘building on the shoulders of giants’ it’s plagiarism/theft.
If he’d published that work first and I took it and found another proof and credited him for his work via citation then that would be fine.
We shouldn't forget that the only way this unpublished research is supposedly getting into the training data in the first place is because the researchers making the accusations were conversing with ChatGPT in the process of doing their own research on these problems.
But if they are saying this contaminated the model's training data with knowledge of their ideas, who's to say the model they were developing their research ideas with wasn't already contaminated through prior discussions with other researchers about the same topics?
So if contamination is proved, or cannot be disproved, and if these researchers want OpenAI to relinquish its claim to have solved these problems independently, then it would seem they also have to give up their claim to have solved them independently?
1. Tristan's research direction was known to only a handful of other academics. It might help if you can be more specific regarding the origin of the contamination.
2. If someone did come out and claim that their ideas were used without proper attribution in Tristan's work, then of course, that deserves consideration.
3. What you're suggesting seems purely hypothetical. At present, there is nobody claiming that Tristan's work is "contaminated"
4. Tristan was very willing in his initial statement to give credit to the people who developed the ideas.
This. I don't like people using others' work without giving proper credit. At the same time, people are jumping too quickly to defend these mathematicians without any solid evidence of their claims, while framing this as some sort of "Evil AI Company vs human mathematicians".
In the best case scenario, the mathematicians were standing on the shoulders of the extensive training data from sources that aren't being credited and they may not even have had access to.
I have nothing against these mathematicians because I don't know them. And given that, there's no reason to trust their word any more than OpenAI's.
It's possible the work they were doing, even if related, was a dead end and immaterial to OpenAI's findings. Or maybe they are right and OpenAI stole their work. Who knows the truth right now?
In other words, we need more evidence before making accusations.
So it’s Napster for ideas?
no it's just a secret stackoverflow, reddit.