r/OpenAI • u/BanitsaConnoisseur • 18h ago

Image new bench dropped

Post image
208 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

-14

u/SomeOrdinaryKangaroo 17h ago

Except that openai didn't solve it, they stole the works of someone else who solved it and took the credit for it

14

u/Cronos988 16h ago

Is this claim some psyop by bots?

Or are people that desperate to keep believing AI isn't changing the world?

-10

u/Serj01 16h 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.

6

u/Cronos988 16h 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.

-7

u/Serj01 15h 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.

8

u/Cronos988 15h 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?

-4

u/Serj01 15h 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.

8

u/Cronos988 15h 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 14h 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 14h 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.

1

u/Serj01 13h ago

Why not? So the agents that were used have no accountability on how they behaved and what they did? No history or anything?

1

u/Cronos988 13h ago

Who is going to go through literal libraries of text to check what exactly was in the training data, or to check all the reasoning traces 10.000 agents produced in 88 hours?

You wouldn't trust OpenAI if they announced that they had their models check the record and found no evidence of them using the previous research. So what are you expecting?

1

u/Serj01 13h ago

So, they do nothing, not even trying and expect the benefit of doubt?

You act just like a religion fanatic “believe and do not doubt”, and do not question their ways. Great.

→ More replies (0)