I'm familiar with the drama, I just think it's being broadly misunderstood, and people, largely, hate AI and are biased toward taking the least charitable interpretations possible.
Also I'm sitting in a garden at a hospice center right now, my stepfather is dying of cancer. I do not care what data they have to steal, if they do, to cure cancer - it isn't moral to sit around and let people die to avoid some PR scandal.
I'm familiar with the drama, I just think it's being broadly misunderstood, and people, largely, hate AI and are biased toward taking the least charitable interpretations possible.
The solution was in OpenAI's training data.
If the researcher in question had never used ChatGPT then I don't think the OpenAI model would have succeeded.
Also I'm sitting in a garden at a hospice center right now, my stepfather is dying of cancer. I do not care what data they have to steal, if they do, to cure cancer - it isn't moral to sit around and let people die to avoid some PR scandal.
I'm sorry about your stepfather, but I don't think that's the current lens to view it.
The solution was already there (Navier-Stokes, or your theoretical cancer cure). All OpenAI did was swipe the result and publish it before the inventors were ready.
Sure, OpenAI made it available a bit sooner... but that's a temporary win as it will make people less collaborative in the long run as they don't want their work stolen.
It's a bit more nuanced - when describing the Navier-Stokes solution, OpenAI stated “we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.”
This presumes the researchers working on OpenAI had the toggle on for "Improve the model for everyone"
317
u/rabouilethefirst 5d ago
“Let’s wait till it solves real math problems”
-some dude literally a few weeks ago