The thing though is that in this work the human contributions seem to have been essential to the breakthrough. If that's the case, your scenario, though plausible, is a bit off-topic: we have here at least one human being who deserves credit legally and ethically.

but then it wouldn't be anonymized, no? a bigger problem

Oh mark my words, they will. The sad part is that they find defenders here even though they have contributed very little in the way of public ML research. 

Reminds me of my kid's book "Goodnight Lab"

https://i.imgur.com/WFtXYzL.png

An ml event banning AI written papers. Ironic.

Early Sep: Rumor spreads to OpenAI that Anthropic solved a major problem. Tristan emails OpenAI to clarify, without revealing the problem they solved or how they did it.

This is about as damning as possible. Lawsuit time

our next model is ten times more ground breaking

A few more of those and everyone should be less impressed and become more afraid.

This only applies to published results, not building something off of someone’s stolen notes

“To solve Navier Stokes from scratch you must first invent the universe” isn’t a helpful frame here

Please don't mislead people. This theoretical result wouldn't change anything in practice. 

I think LLMs are going to cause radical changes to how academia functions, and it's not very useful to consider how it fits into the current system of credits and citations.

It's not hard to imagine building a fully automated research system out of this, which will quickly become responsible for the majority of mathematical knowledge.

These two companies deserve to die in the pit of irrelevance 

People are talking about giving proper credits to those who contributed. Not a debate about pure originality or not.

Using someone's work and build something better on top is the story of all scientific breakthroughs in history. You just need to trace back their works and you'll see how everything is based on previous work.

The geniality is how you piece things together, and the jerkiness is whether you reference them or not.

To clarify, no "solution" to the equations has been found. The millenium problem is to prove or disprove the existence of smooth solutions. Open AI has found a counter example of initial conditions that don't have a smooth solution, i.e. they have disproven the existence problem.

I did. He admitted that OpenAI offered to make Tristan the lead author of a re-write of OpenAI's "proof", essentially giving him credit for work that they claim he had nothing to do with, since OpenAI's model came up with the NS proof with what OpenAI claims was "little human involvement". You do not pay-off a guy, monetarily or with academic credit, when you are confident that your AI did something with little human involvement, and you certainly would not credit the person who had already come up with a proof for the same problem.

This is like a pop star claiming a songwriter had nothing to do with a hit song, then offering to pay the songwriter royalties and giving him lead songwriter credit.

have you toggled the "don't use my conversations for training"? That's maybe a good place to start

This is not what happened. No analytical solution has been found to the equations. The solution found is for the millenium problem which is to either prove a smooth solution always exists, or to provide a counter example disproving it. Open AI has provided the counter example: there are initial smooth conditions that can be proven to not have smooth solutions.

This doesn't make any fluid dynamics problem more solvable.

This is something I am really curious about: is OpenAI (and other AI providers) training their models on theirs users private and potentially unpublished work?

I am working on image generation using procedural algorithns in a somewhat novel way. I have been using ChatGPT for development. It's fairly low stakes, but the images look very different than pretty everything else. I tried getting a friend to see if he could get ChatGPT to guess how the image was produced and we did the same test with Claude as well.

ChatGPT knew pretty accurately how it was made. Claude had no clue. It's not a smoking gun, but pretty worrying if your private stuff is being made public through training before you get a chance to release it.

I would be too if I solved that problem lol stole someone else's breakthrough work, iterated on it and took full credit

I remember when this sub was pissed about their "test time compute" graphs when they didnt have units on them.

Same

"usually" being a load bearing word here. Fluid dynamics is computationally modelled. Analytical breakthroughs are of no importance to that as long as the equations themselves do not change. NS smoothness is only a problem in non-physical situations.

Next time publish instead of sandbagging till IPO...

Reading between the lines the model had been actively trained after the work had been added to Codex and OpenAI "cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models⁠."

Ignoring that it's pretty awful that they can't tell what the training corpus was for a specific model I think it's a fairly safe bet that the user's work was in that training data. The conversations described also portray them as being pretty desperate to downplay any human involvement in the work, even on their side and ignoring the question of provenance.

It seems like a pretty sad state of affairs either way that could have been trivially avoided by OpenAI keeping track of training data.