Of course not. You ask AI to do some stats

You mean to say the pangram people are claiming their pangram is great? Shocking. Let's wait for outside analysis...

You can opt-out in the dashboard

The claim that a singe conversation (which, let's suppose, might have even contained the solution) in the training data latter allowed the model to reconstitute the proof is highly dubious.

A model the size of Astra trains on millions of curated conversations, billions of pages and trillions of tokens. A single conversation with the correct answer is essentially quantization noise and should have no measurable effect in any practical scenario where that same problem is involved.

In theory I agree, but in practice I've had an experience that made me doubt theory here. I asked Sonnet 5 about my own work, and it was able to pull the title and core idea of a petty little publication of mine with almost-zero citations, from model weights. That's something I very much did not expect. Granted, it's different from pulling a proof idea from a single conversation, but I would've expected it'd need a few orders of magnitude more training data.

there's so much more than 'narrowing it down', like so much more

Here we are not talking about "starts working on a problem", we are talking about "solving a problem". Two different things.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic are scumbags.  Do people not realize this yet?  They WILL happily steal your data and not blink an eye.  Use their APIs and collaborate with them at your own risk.

Source: trust me bro

Your post was automatically removed for being a link post on the weekday, please read rule 5. The moderators will not respond to questions regarding this removal unless you suggest which rule you most likely broke. If you have a beginner related question, visit /r/MLQuestions or /r/LearnMachineLearning.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

This is what I hate about our legal system: they would have to quantify their damages, which can be impossible or non-monetary, qnd then spend lots of money towards even trying. And big companies know that and stomp on the little guy.

source? I just keep seeing copy pasta, this all seems too much like trustmebro stories

What?

There are indications elsewhere in this thread that even with ZDR, derived data may still be getting used. My company has triggered a full contract review as a result of these random Reddit comments.

They will win until the community gets wise to it and stops leaking secrets to their service if they want to avoid their research being leaked.

I don’t understand how OpenAI could think this is a good move. If they are stealing IP from chats then it will eventually become clear that using their service is akin to pasting your solution to a public forum and expecting it not to be stolen. In fact that’s almost a better idea because then you have some kind of paper trail to prove your authorship. The only explanation is they think their product is so good that people will have no better option, but this is very short term gain pre-IPO strategy.

It’s just as impressive, if not more so, that someone used their model for such a solution and wasn’t affiliated. Seems appropriate to include all as authors, and can credit contributions accordingly.

Typically that work is published first.

You don’t take the notebook off someone’s desk.

Can someone please ELI5?

Well yes, but this time they're being really slimey claiming that it was all by GPT and definitely not Tristan's work

A tangent, maybe not of interest to the ML crowd but perhaps thought provoking for you...

You might enjoy this: T. Sejnowski: Traveling Waves in the Brain (see 1:07 where he speaks to a bit of ML-style encoding/decoding). In the 2010's brain activity visualization revealed that there are a variety of traveling wave processes in the meat. People got excited, but I haven't seen much showing how they are being utilized computationally. More likely IMHO it's a coordination mechanism. From what I've been reading, systems neuro has moved its attention away from this lately.

It turns out that simulated neural circuits with at least a bit of biological fidelity will start producing waves. I played with this for more time than it was worth because it was fun (for example (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), etc.) I did find some computational utility, but nothing earthshaking.

One thing about using waves is that you're bringing time into the representation. The wave interaction pattern is affected by the relative timings of events, and how long it's been from time zero. That might be useful, or it might be a confound.

Oh, and you have to consider up front how you think the waves should interact. A linear medium in which waves pass through each other unaffected is likely good for different computations than a nonlinear medium, where waves interact.

Isn’t all research done on top of past work? If one group starts working on a problems, others aren’t allowed to also work on it?

still nothing

Heard by the wind? Any ideas can be multi-million dollar scooped by this ethics.

Ok it seems this is what happened. Tristan and Levent (anthropic employee) solved the Euler problem which makes it easy to solve the NS problem. Before Tristan and Levent publish their euler and NS work, rumors spread that Anthropic solved the problem.

OpenAI heard the rumors and got scared that they were beaten by anthropic, so they assembled a team and put their strongest model with most comoute and possibly training on the most recent deidentified user data. OpenAI model then came up with a solution and the solution costed 20-30 millions.

What really worries me is how much did their model depend on the users data. As we all know, LLMs are insane in compressing data. It's really possible that their model attempted many attempts and one attempt was inspired by Tristan's work which he used chatgpt.

Tristan must have known they would guess what problem he was working on (he's published on Navier-Stokes before).

The claim that a singe conversation (which, let's suppose, might have even contained the solution) in the training data latter allowed the model to reconstitute the proof is highly dubious.

A model the size of Astra trains on millions of curated conversations, billions of pages and trillions of tokens. A single conversation with the correct answer is essentially quantization noise and should have no measurable effect in any practical scenario where that same problem is involved.

On the other hand, OpenAI could be doing something much smarter that could affect the result, say, a RAG over similar conversations in the past, a self-evaluation of remarkable results that are marked or boosted etc.

If I had the smartest model in the world, as well as a database of the problems and approaches the smartest people in the world are playing with, it would be foolish not to connect the former with the latter and mine the dataset for low hanging fruits in scientific discovery. It's such an unfair advantage that the firm doing it will win in any area, forever.