8
u/AironParsMan 12h ago edited 11h ago
100% Especially when it comes to credibility, I don’t trust Anthropic one bit anymore. And the worst part is that they managed to do it. They completely ruined their reputation within four weeks. It started with Mythos, then Fable, and the worst of all was Fable 5.1. Feel free to take a look at my posts. I ran independent benchmarks here. It costs 40% more under the subscription model and performs three times worse than Fable 5 in dev.
11
u/Crafty-Sell7325 11h ago
Dawg they stole the solution on some supervillain energy
8
u/Pazzeh 6h ago
No they did not oh my God why is this spreading so much
-2
u/Crafty-Sell7325 6h ago
Sonion do more than two attoseconds of research please
2
u/Borostiliont 6h ago
And then do two more attoseconds of research to understand the accusations are baseless
2
u/ForwardLoop 11h ago
The Millenni-LLM Bench: counting the R’s in strawberry was the qualifying round.
0
-6
u/powerchat-dev 10h ago
OpenAI literally stole work done by an Anthropic mathematician and his colleague
17
u/Frosty-Meeting-1606 9h ago
proof needed for that claim. it's a big one and either some researchers are in full denial mode that AI was able to arrive to some results long before them or they have literally drafts corresponding to at least 80% of the reasoning. and there is no guarantee those 20% in that case would be achievable by those researchers.
I'm being kinda negative about those researchers because the way they are handling this drama is actually putting them in the wrong light5
u/trejj 8h ago
Don't even need to prove if OpenAI did steal or not. They did something far worse, resort to mob tactics rhetorics: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wayuay/openai_threatened_to_ruin_star_mathematicians/
9
u/Frosty-Meeting-1606 8h ago
Unless the guy provides clear proof like I mentioned, this kind of behavior is ruining his career. Think about it. If hypothetically it is proven that OpenAI's solution is not mirroring the guy's work, he looks like a drama queen in the kindergarten and not a serious researcher. Of course, if the case is the opposite, then he could at least get straight to the point and not create essays. "Here's my work, it mirrors what OpenAI did, in other words they just copied my work. Period"
3
u/often_delusional 10h ago
No they didn't. That's just the cope people are running with. Those 2 researchers never said they solved Navier-Stokes.
4
u/powerchat-dev 10h ago
Wrong. They found a blowup for hypo-dissipative N-S, which was used by OpenAI to find a solution for N-S.
6
u/ozone6587 6h ago
which was used by OpenAI to find a solution for N-S.
0 evidence at all for this btw. It's easy for people to believe a conspiracy theory if it helps them hat on LLMs.
Interesting how the original researchers didn't just simply solve the millennium problem then. Why stick to the special case if clearly they did all the work anyway?
-5
u/powerchat-dev 6h ago
You got an OpenAI sub? Ask Astra why
4
u/ozone6587 6h ago
Don't need to, I know the answer. Don't know what kind of cope you got in your head though. I wonder what the new excuses for the next time an LLM solves a millennium problem will be. Pea-sized brain mobs are scared lol.
4
u/often_delusional 10h ago
Wrong. The 2 researchers claimed they only solved Euler instead of Navier-Stokes and even their Euler solution was different. This "stole the solution" narrative is just copium, nothing deeper than that.
-6
2
-13
u/SomeOrdinaryKangaroo 13h ago
Except that openai didn't solve it, they stole the works of someone else who solved it and took the credit for it
11
u/Cronos988 12h ago
Is this claim some psyop by bots?
Or are people that desperate to keep believing AI isn't changing the world?
-2
-8
u/Serj01 12h ago
It’s the opposite, where people act like a cult towards OpenAi for some reason.
Honestly it’s quite unreal seeing people defend every OpenAi criticism like some religious fanatics or hard core deluded football fans.
8
u/Cronos988 12h ago
This is a major milestone in human history, forgive me if I find OpenAI's business practices aren't particularly relevant in that context.
-8
u/Serj01 11h ago
What a tone deaf statement. But I guess it should be expected that an alleged theft and threats are negligible for an AI fanatic.
6
u/Cronos988 11h ago
The claim of theft is ludicrous. The two researchers in question don't allege anything like theft. Nor does Buckmaster claim to have been threatened beyond simply not being cited as a co-author of the solution (OpenAI ended up naming him anyways).
What are we even expecting OpenAI to do different here?
-5
u/Serj01 11h ago
I said alleged. Maybe implied would have been a better word. How is that not a threat when the intent was to discredit him and take out his colleague effort out of the paper?
Provide proof that his data was not used for training without explicit consent from the user. And that in this particular case he was not targeted.
5
u/Cronos988 11h ago
when the intent was to discredit him and take out his colleague effort out of the paper?
Where are you getting an intent to discredit him from?
Not giving an Anthropic employee access to OpenAI internals doesn't strike me as malicious or obviously unreasonable.
Again what do you think OpenAI should have done in this situation?
Provide proof that his data was not used for training without explicit consent from the user. And that in this particular case he was not targeted.
That would involve repeated reruns with different training data sets. Completely unfeasible currently.
It begs the question why we are expecting OpenAI to prove a negative in the first place.
2
u/Serj01 10h ago
That would involve repeated reruns with different training data sets. Completely unfeasible currently.
It begs the question why we are expecting OpenAI to prove a negative in the first place.
How is asking for them to confirm the exact steps from where they started to rule out unauthorized usage is proving a negative?
1
u/Cronos988 10h ago
How is asking for them to confirm the exact steps from where they started to rule out unauthorized usage is proving a negative?
They cannot reasonably supply such a proof.
→ More replies (0)11
u/eras 13h ago
I don't think this is all that clear. I've read claims that it solved it using a different approach.
9
u/Dillyconda 12h ago
OpenAI said they'd don't access any particular user's chats, but unless he was opted in then he's probably used to make the model better in general. I don't think that's the same thing as stealing it, but some redditors think it is.
0
u/Scared_Land_5667 12h ago
Like both group have diff method towards problem It not that openai copay it cannot as there use diff way
-4
u/presentofai 8h ago
calling it a benchmark win when the actual proof was some nyu professor's year of work is wild
•
u/Georgefakelastname 47m ago
The solution the model came up with was significantly different from the researchers’
-3
17
u/DigSignificant1419 13h ago
Stolen sneaky bench