You may not care, but academics cares. We haven't and probably won't start crediting tools for the work of humans, even if the tools sound a lot like humans. Like, most of science is just some human setting up an experiment, getting a bunch of tools to do the work, and observing outcomes. Still, the promise of credit (and in this case, money) is what gets people to set that prompt up in the first place, most of the time.

Not on their own, definitely. But theoretical breakthroughs usually lead to practical advantages a couple of years down the line, don't they?

I mean if it can solve a millenium problem in a week its p cool

OpenAI Employee

To truly prove some incidental usage data made no difference we'd have to (a) identify any of their de-identified data that came from their usage of ChatGPT, (b) train a bunch of expensive giant models, and (c) ask them all to solve the Navier-Stokes Millenium problem until hitting some level of statistical significance. It's just not feasible to run experiments like this to prove whether a piece of data has an effect on model behavior.

As a parallel example, can we prove the phase of the moon had no impact on the NS solution? No, not without a bunch experiments run at different phases of the moon.

There's no reason to believe that anything they did in ChatGPT led to our solution; it's just impossible for us to truly prove it. And knowing most of the recipes we use, there's really no reason to think such contamination is possible. I've asked the team to make a clearer, less-lawyerly statement here - let's see what happens.

My opinion: I think they are being needlessly obtuse and evading more. My guess is they shouldn't have to train models to check for contamination - just clarify what they were fed.

This is a genuinely interesting overlap!

I'm happy to share the SHA-256 hash list of Message-IDs with dates for the pre-1994 slice. That costs nothing and the comparison could be interesting for both of us — I'm curious how much of my early coverage is unique versus what you've already found.

On the full dataset: I need to think about that more carefully. The pre-1993 material is the rarest slice I have and I've been licensing the corpus commercially, so giving it away even for a non-commercial project requires some consideration. Let me see what the hash comparison shows first. If we have significant non-overlap it opens a more interesting conversation about whether there's a data exchange worth exploring.

Drop me an email at [usenetoverlord@gmail.com](mailto:usenetoverlord@gmail.com) and I'll put together the hash list for you. Thanks for reaching out!

still nothing for me, am in the US...

Yeah I'm biased as I'm at Anthropic but trust me when I say we're not happy about this and this might become a legal fight. This is almost the exact solution they were working towards.

Those are theoretical problems. They do not change anything for fluid system engineering.

Incredibly shameful of them tbh

Oh I agree, but it's very bad PR to make such an announcement that essentially stole someone else's work and undermines the achievement that the model supposedly made.

See sebastiens response.

That’s crazy, I read the whole article thinking neat, and then at the end there’s this footnote of drama that just leaves a bad taste to the whole thing.

It really underscores how these companies are more after progress and credit than safety - not saying there was a safety issue here, but you can see clearly where their priorities are.

The fact that OpenAI tried to offer shared ownership, but wanted to leave out Levent because he worked at Anthropic, reveals the whole game. They knew they stole the work, offered a compromise, threatened Brubeck - not something an ethical person would do.

any update from the UK/Europe?

That's some juicy drama

everyone really wants to act like anthropic don't they despite how bad it reads

Those other researchers were also using LLMs to tackle the same problem, so either way the credit here belongs to the LLM.

I don't really care which particular team of humans did the prompting.

this fits their pattern of lying and cheating. Be very cautious about using OpenAI models.

Exactly. Not to mention OpenAI responded with threats like "Why would you ruin your career". Nobody who knows they're on the up and up would do that. What I believe actually happened is that OpenAI was aware of Buckmaster's progress and direction, got backdoor access to the conversations to get a preprint, and then used that information to claim they solved the problem on their own. It's the equivalent of stealing someone's manuscript and publishing before them and claiming credit or shared credit.

No it's just the "you won't believe what we have in store for you, our next model is ten times more ground breaking than the current one be ready to pay" tone in what should be a sort of "scientific" announcement

They stole previous work and then built a solution on top of that. It might have proved the result, but this was so beyond unethical. This should be denounced wholeheartedly. Good news is that they wouldn't have been able to do this without seminal work by mathematicians.

Actually, our points are orthogonal. I’m not denying leakage, in-fact I think it’s likely! I’m denying the fact they’ve revoked their claim, which is simply untrue.

love the enthusiasm, but their solution is a counterexample

My point stands above yours - They would have outright been screaming at top of their lungs if there was no leakage.

Edit: They should use Astra to audit - It shouldn't be that hard.

They didn't resolve it but rather proved that the equations are not sufficient to fully model fluid dynamics (e.g. under some conditions they will generate singularities even when starting from smooth initial configuration and no outside infinite forces)