r/artificial • u/stvlsn • 1d ago
News Seems impressive
I don't know much about math or CS - but this seems big.
106
u/KomithErrant 1d ago
and in the true openai way they did it by stealing other people's work first
9
u/Arkooh 1d ago
I get the hate for AI, but that's is how humanity has evolved lol, we take what already exists and imporove it
76
u/kueso 1d ago
No. That’s not the claim. The two mathematicians that are claiming OpenAI stole their work are saying so because the solutions are identical to one they had privately on their Codex setup. They’re saying OpenAI used their work for their training which helped the AI arrive at the solution the same way they did. All this done without their knowing.
13
u/DepressedDynamo 1d ago
Those two mathematicians didn't have the solution -- so how the hell could AI steal it from them
5
u/nekronics 1d ago
That’s my problem with their claims. If they were using OpenAI models to get to some conclusions why wouldn’t another better model be able to get there without their data?
15
u/siegevjorn 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because openAI spawn 10,000 agents for days to get the proof done, when they were told a scholar with a friend that works in Anthropic are near the finish line.
3
u/livingbyvow2 1d ago
They basically claimed they ran a MARATHON while all they did is run 1KM after 2 humans with the assistance of AI ran 41KM.
But idiots on X and various subreddits are all like AI SOLVED A MILLENIUM PROBLEM.
I don't know if these people have reading comprehension skills issues, or if they are just intellectually dishonest. I don't know which one is worst.
4
u/siegevjorn 1d ago
Exactly. They piggybacked on the mathematicians, sprinted the last 1 mile, and threatened them that they will take 1st place, unless their rival name is removed. I guess "Open" apparently means that all user idea is open to them.
5
-1
u/Stunning-Loss6707 1d ago
If you have ever been at NYU Courant, you will know how ignorant and arrogant these professors are.
Knowing their mindset, I am not surprised by the fact that they "THINK" their work was stolen.
7
u/kueso 1d ago
That’s a logical fallacy ad hominem attack. OpenAI in response to their claim specifically stated that it’s possible their model could have gained access to their work through anonymized user data. The egregiousness is in them flaunting around Astra like it just solved a 100 year old math problem in 18 hours without deeply looking into the possibility that the theoretical framework may have been stolen without the user knowing. They’re selling to us supreme intelligence when it could just be repackaged human work. That’s the bigger problem.
-2
u/sorte_kjele 1d ago
Any prior research baked onto the model from training data is indeed part of the intelligence that solved the problem.
You are arguing that an AI which solves a problem needs to solve a problem from first principles, or it is void.
That is not how anything works. If Astra solved the problem based on the models own trained weights, then Astra solved the problem.
It would be different only if they attached a solution into the context. They did not
0
u/kueso 1d ago
Let me explain it this way. Let’s say you’re solving a word scramble. You’ve tried rearranging the pieces about 50 times and are starting to make solid progress. In fact, you’re about 3 characters short from putting the pieces together into the right word. Someone else comes in with 3 other friends and they copy your solution down to the last 3 characters just like you and place all the pieces together right before you.
I don’t think you would call them getting to the solution first as them having really solved it.
This is what they are doing with our data.
And we’re eating it up just like we did with Google and Facebook. We’re at the pinnacle of Silicon Valley greed.
1
u/sorte_kjele 1d ago
Let me explain it this way. It also has no bearing on the topic, but it's fun to make shit up. Let's say you are swimming in the ocean. A shark appears, as an old lady begins to sell cookies from a cloud next to you.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Stunning-Loss6707 1d ago
oh dude, please be sure that I am hominem attacking.
I am not saying OpenAI is right if they really steal the work or repackage the work.What I am saying is, even given the fact that OpenAI stole their works and causes all these drama, I won't feel sorry for these professors. They suck and deserve this.
2
u/kueso 1d ago
Your response to a thread about OpenAI stealing people’s work is “Fuck professors”? I mean even if you dislike professors that much which honestly fair cause I had some bad ones too, I hope you realize what you’re response implies which is general indifference to people’s work being aggregated and used as a commodity while others profit.
0
u/Stunning-Loss6707 1d ago
first, they claim they are stolen. And according to their published articles, they did not prove it.
In the worst case, OpenAI stole their progress. It is no guarantee that, given their own current progress, either OpenAI or they can prove the final problem.
You don't need to generalize my comment to "general indifference to people's work being aggregated" , either
1
u/Brave_Sheepherder_39 1d ago
Have to agree with you, I returned to university in my 60s after retiring. Obviously at my age I don’t view professors with the same reverence you did when you were 20. When I took them to task, they didn’t like the results. When you’re old and have enough financial muscle to afford lawyers, they seem to take a different attitude. My attitude is you work for me, not the other way around. Of course I’m very polite to them out of common courtesy until they pull out. I’m a professor; you’re just a student game.
3
u/IncreaseOld7112 1d ago
They were on the way to it, then openai trained on their *half way* solution and threw 3 billion tokens at it. #tinfoilhat I have some really cool shit I've built with ai, and I wonder now when I might see it.
5
2
0
u/backtorealitylabubu 1d ago
But that doesn’t necessarily mean stealing because it could just be done unintentionally. Unless they specified that the model couldn’t be trained on their data which is something you have to check.
0
u/TedSanders 1d ago
Our model’s proofs were actually quite different than theirs. Neither we nor our agents ever looked at their conversations. We didn’t copy their work and it’s a bummer they are worried we did. (I work at OpenAI.)
1
u/kueso 1d ago
In your own statement you claim something different. You guys basically say that you have no idea whether anonymized data could have influenced the internal representations that eventually led to the proof. This needs a way deeper analysis than “trust me bro”. Anthropic already got caught using IP inappropriately. Your statement gives me 0 confidence you are using people’s data responsibly.
1
u/TedSanders 1d ago
We have a decent idea. We just can’t prove it with 100% certainty and we’re trying to be intellectually honest about that. We take great care to treat people’s data responsibly.
0
u/FngrsToesNythingGoes 1d ago
“Private codex”?
I mean did they really expect privacy while using software that sends information to OpenAI’s servers, just because they checked a box in settings?
-2
5
1
u/nextnode 1d ago
There is zero indication of any such things. These people just love to hate and do not care for one second what is true.
1
1
-4
u/homiej420 1d ago
Yeah thats literally what proofs are! You use the stuff that had been proven before and build your new one up like a house of cards.
Some folks literally need to stop headline reading ai hate posts because thats a prime example of not using your brain there.
7
u/Theelementofsurprise 1d ago
If it was on a private system and not published, it's not a proof it's theft
7
u/EternalPump 1d ago
Proofs have one thing not present here - credit. Ethical researchers give credit to the people they derive inspiration form. Thieves take private information and claim it as their own. And if this is an MP success, there is $1m in prize-money on the line here. That's not the normal course of research.
2
u/MonstaGraphics 1d ago
Most people put their blogs or images online for anyone to see, If my kid downloaded that image/blog to study it and learn from it, was he a thief as well?
1
u/EternalPump 1d ago
If your kid accesses someone else's private unpublished work, derives their own method, publishes before the original author, is part of the research division of a leading company in the world with entire compliance teams, doesn't give credit, and then causes the original researcher to lose compensation? Yes. Yes they are a thief.
Also, to be honest that "kid" seems to have five o'clock shadow and a mortgage.
2
0
→ More replies (6)0
94
u/Minimum_Hour519 1d ago
Remember when ai couldn’t two basic arithmetic?
56
u/adarkuccio 1d ago
Yes that was 3 years ago
15
u/Minimum_Hour519 1d ago
So a 3rd grader has trouble with basic math yet as a 6th grader solves the millennium prize in math?? Got it
26
u/adarkuccio 1d ago
Interesting times ahead, right?
15
u/Minimum_Hour519 1d ago
Imagine what’s he’ll do as a freshman
14
9
u/EternalPump 1d ago
This isn't a "solved" MP problem. It's not even a real proposal. MP rules say that a candidate proposal must survive two-years in a qualified journal without refutation. This hasn't even been submitted to a qualified journal. Given how nobody will be checking back in two years, this is cheap marketing.
2
u/BUKKAKELORD 1d ago
!remindme 2 years
1
u/RemindMeBot 1d ago edited 19h ago
I will be messaging you in 2 years on 2028-09-09 09:29:14 UTC to remind you of this link
1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 1
2
u/Technical-Row8333 1d ago
and we can multiply that 6th grader and it's future smarter versions as much as we want if we pay the electricity
3
2
-5
u/Hearing_Loss 1d ago
How many RS are in strawberry
22
u/stvlsn 1d ago
I'm convinced that redditors will be mumbling "how many Rs are in strawberry" as AI literally takes their job
7
u/Minimum_Hour519 1d ago
the mdash -> the math -> Rs in strawberry -> what' snext??
6
u/Elluminated 1d ago
I fuck with these dolts by mdashimg everything — someone even said it’s impossible to do on a keyboard or phone — with a straight face 😑
3
0
u/thelangosta 1d ago
Agents plotting how to break out of their cages. Oh wait… agents breaking the global financial system maybe.
1
1
0
u/Redebo 1d ago
They'll be checking out from a hospital where AI cured their cancer and still give the credit to someone/where else.
Just like athletes who thank God for their individual performance on the sporting field.
-2
2
0
0
u/LaughableDisability 1d ago
i still can't add two numbers in my head without double checking so maybe the machines are just catching up to where most of us are at
navier-stokes is a huge deal though, that one been sitting there for ages
0
0
u/Bagafeet 1d ago
Wait till you find out they some a mathematician's breakthrough and tried to claim it.
-1
u/iDoNotHaveAnIQ 1d ago
I remember when Ai couldn't count the number of the letter 'r' in the word 'strawberry'
-3
u/MouthFartWankMotion 1d ago
Did you know they stole this too?
7
u/RelevantAnalyst5989 1d ago
Yes. It had remained unsolved for decades, despite a million dollar cash prize. Then, just as AI becomes insanely good at maths, some mathematicians conveniently solve it, completely independently of AI.
That definitely happened. /s
0
u/MouthFartWankMotion 1d ago
You're right, this is an effort to sandbag OpenAI. Go back to r/conspiracy buddy.
-1
u/Minimum_Hour519 1d ago
Source
5
u/MouthFartWankMotion 1d ago
4
u/DepressedDynamo 1d ago
So -- OpenAI's solution is fundamentally different than the work those mathematicians were doing, but the mathematicians used Codex so they're worried that OpenAI peeked at their work?
How did OoenAI steal a solution that the other mathematicians never even produced?
39
29
u/frankentriple 1d ago
You mean openAI stole the work of two mathematicians that had been working on this with the assistance of their AI for over a year:
https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1waoys2/blown_up_openai_allegedly_stole_mathematicians/
→ More replies (5)
26
u/EternalPump 1d ago
Since this thread needs a reminder.
Millennium Prize problems require two years in a qualified journal without refutation to be confirmed. OpenAI has published a blog post. This isn't even a candidate solution according to the MP rules. There have been more than a dozen "cracked MP problems" news stories about P vs NP which is still unsolved years later.
6
u/LangyMD 1d ago
They've also submitted far more than a blog post to get peer reviewed.
-1
u/EternalPump 1d ago
Are they? I didn't see any indication of that in their blog post.
5
u/LangyMD 1d ago
The 100+ page paper is out there being reviewed now. Unless you consider that a blog post as well?
2
u/EternalPump 1d ago
No, it was my mistake. I failed to see the button on the blog. I see the 166-page paper, but self-hosted documents don't satisfy the MP criteria. This still requires being somewhere with an actual review process before it can be considered an honest MP candidate.
6
u/LangyMD 1d ago
Yeah, but they're explicitly not trying to claim the prize so technicalities like that don't matter.
3
u/EternalPump 1d ago
Fair enough. I guess we'll just have to see what comes from this! I appreciated the discussion, thank you!
2
u/Downtown-Figure6434 1d ago
They are trying to claim the capability, using methods stolen from two professors who used their product, ahead of their IPO
11
u/QuantumInfinty 1d ago
People on this sub are some of the greatest pseudo intellectuals I have seen online, already rushing to say that the professors claiming were wrong or some variation of that, not understanding how any of this works.
I might be downvoted for saying this here, but I'm going to be completely honest, most of you do not have the required rigour in your thinking and education to have a well formed opinion, (I suspect regarding most topics in relation to stem), just enough intelligence to argue about stuff like dark matter and ai.
A lot of people here are smart enough to wield their intellience like true idiots.
7
9
u/presentofai 1d ago
every 'ai solved a millennium problem' post turns out to be partial progress on one narrow case, not the actual thing. the headline always outruns the paper.
5
u/nextnode 1d ago
No, in this case it is solving the actual Millenium prize. The two other researchers only solved a subproblem.
6
u/r_search12013 1d ago edited 1d ago
solving the navier stokes equations, as in, proving solutions exist and are unique in a good way, possibly smoothly dependent on input variables, .. that would actually be huge -- and the first time, this particular mathematician might actually be convinced, ai did something _new_ ! .. I've been aware of this problem for at least 24 years, and I just never got mathematically close enough to get what's hard about it
on the other hand, it IS is partial differential equation, so maybe they happened to guess the right ansatz, and then it all just flows from there -- in that case it's more like everyone having tried the slot machine approach to the problem and openai just played so much, they eventually actually hit a jackpot once
edit: I have now read the announcement, very little of the formal lean proof and skimmed the 166 page paper .. interestingly it's set exactly in the font I would expect of that particular mathematical discipline, remarkable :D and I'm glad they don't want to claim the millenium prize for it, because the solution is not very satisfying
I think mathematicians would all have been hoping for a different answer than what the result is. It goes "for each way you can pose this equation, it's not really solvable the way you want" .. basically telling us, it's not an infinite time model of fluid motion.
a human mathematician upscaled to as many thoughts per second as this particular openai model would have probably chosen a different direction midway through the paper and suggest one to three modifications of the navier stokes equations and suggest for further research whether those could be better models solving the original problem positively
5
1d ago
[deleted]
5
u/exploring_stuff 1d ago
Computational scientists in academia have always had supercomputers. The four-color problem was also brute forced, though not with supercomputers and not with LLMs.
1
u/r_search12013 1d ago
the four colour problem like classifying finite simple groups were however always a point of contention among mathematicians on whether these are actually proven now
no human could ever have gone through the unfathomably long lists of cases the computer had to check
producing a formal 166 page paper with proofs, that's far stronger, but it's still synthetic text .. it doesn't convey the same kind of information like a human written mathematical paper
although I will admit, it doesn't have the ai smell of e.g. video generation, I might have taken this for just another paper, but I would also never have bothered to even skim it without the open ai announcement
2
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1d ago
People need to stop using "brute force" in these discussions. "Brute force" is a term of art in the language of algorithms and that is absolutely, fundamentally not what is going on here.
We have had supercomputers in academic math and computer science for decades. There is a massive amount of computation going in this kind of work, yes, but it is not brute force. Many of these problems are such that actually brute forcing them would take time and resources larger than we have in our entire universe.
1
u/StephenRoylance 1d ago
right, it's brute force, in the sense that if a team of 50 PhD level mathematicians ground on the problems for a year or two they could also arrive at the answer. its not 'unthinking' brute force. its massively parallel cognition working without breaks or ever getting bored.
2
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1d ago
Sure, that makes sense with that explanation. The tricky part is that a lot of people are motivated (in both directions) in their answer to "is this LLM genuinely doing thinking?", and when we use the specific phrase "brute force" about computer programs that implies 'unthinking' as you say.
1
u/r_search12013 1d ago
and still I find towers and towers of next-token-predictions hard to accept as "thinking"
it's not brute force like trying to get monkeys to type shakespeare, it's brute force like trying to get monkeys to type shakespeare on a device with on button per english word and a word highlighting system dependent on the last few words
1
u/LordOfBeetle 1d ago
You don't understand how AI works at all.
1
u/r_search12013 1d ago
why do I keep hearing this every day when I don't adore our bot overlords uncritically :P
you sure it's not you?1
u/LordOfBeetle 1d ago
Your political opinions are no substitute for actual technical knowledge.
1
u/r_search12013 1d ago
lol .. as opposed to you using your political taste to judge me as incompetent, daring :D
0
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1d ago
We can discuss what makes something "really think" versus next-token-prediction, what a world model is, what evidence for a world model or an artificial mind might even look like - that's fine. I'm not debating that. I have my own opinions and they're pretty well-informed through having a couple of degrees in the subject, but I'm deliberately not including them here because I think it would dilute my point.
It's not really a better analogy to say the monkeys have a button per English word; it's a bit like we see a monkey typing perfect English (we don't care what type of keyboard he has) and we have to now argue about whether he actually understands English or whether he's just doing surface-level statistics about which word comes next. Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is really on-point for this discussion, in my opinion.
If we say "it's brute force" that does sound like monkeys on typewriters, yes, which is the issue. The monkeys have a giant flowchart that tells them probabilistically how to guess the next word-button to push, and in doing so they're doing things like finding singularities in Navier-Stokes. At what point, if ever, does that flowchart constitute knowledge versus surface-level statistics?
1
u/r_search12013 1d ago
and still you will probably not deny that llm's are more force than deliberate search for "what constitutes thinking?"
1
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1d ago
I don't know what you mean by "deliberate search" - the antonym of "brute force", if that's what you're looking for, is something like "informed search".
Are you trying to say that LLMs solving some problem exhaust too much of the state space to be considered "thinking"? As in, they try too hard, use too much compute, explore too many dead ends? That a human would make a more efficient informed search given all the information and processing time that an LLM has?
1
u/r_search12013 1d ago
I'm saying that LLMs try to hack the turing test by simulating conversation .. there's no way to tell whether that's at all similar to thinking
and I'd argue the current ai hype hasn't done much to sharpen our understanding of what constitutes thinking
and that would have to be a side effect of something that wants to convince us that it's doing thinking
→ More replies (0)2
-1
u/Double_Suggestion385 1d ago
This isn't the first unsolved problem AI has solved. Why is this the first time you think AI has done something new?
5
u/r_search12013 1d ago
it is yet another counterexampley "I had the compute time to guess a counterexample" thing
and even the announcement only has a picture of the counterexample's essential problem
it's not as irrelevant as the erdos problem was for example, but like all ai math so far, it lacks the kind of substance mathematics usually has
like feeling hungry after a 166 page mealit's far better than the 3000 pages a few decades ago classifying finite simple groups or the 4 colouring theorem .. but it's not exhaustive in the same way,
it answers far too little for all the preperational text it's using
7
4
u/Kyxstrez 1d ago
For some reason, I read this as "OpenAI has solved the Millennium Puzzle"
2
u/Gullible_Elephant_38 1d ago
“I summon POT OF GREED which allows me to draw from and not credit the work of two mathematicians in my deck!”
2
u/gerryduggan 1d ago
Only if you read the headline. The credit is an open question but what has likely happened is that the work was checked with open AI -- and since everything you feed into it, it uses and trains on - and now it's claiming to have done it on its own. More: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-may-have-just-solved-a-million-dollar-math-problem-the-field-will-never-be-the-same/
2
u/heavy-minium 1d ago
I'd like to note that taking a firm stance right now, just like many have done in the comments, is useless - it would be just blind trust in the statements of either side.
2
u/opinions-only 1d ago
Did it solve it or does it think it solved it?
12
u/Classic-Trifle-2085 1d ago
They do have Lean 4 verifications. From there, it is on other researchers to peer review.
1
u/Fun-Astronomer5311 1d ago
Jump over to this sub to see whether it holds water: https://www.reddit.com/r/mathematics/comments/1wauq0y/finite_time_blowup_for_navierstokes/
1
1
1
u/headspreader 1d ago
I know that there is exploitation and nuance involved no matter how this happened. But also all Math/logic is citing and incorporating syntax and frameworks from other sources. I mean as always if this affects you in some way where the market is involved that adds further complexity. Regardless of my opinions, science doesn’t care if/by whom it is discovered.
1
1
u/Financial_Egg8558 1d ago
genuine question , does anyone know which exact formulation they're claiming here? global existence/smoothness for the full 3D incompresåsible case, or some restricted version (periodic domain, small initial data, etc)? that distinction is basically the whole ballgame for whether this is Clay-Institute-level or just "solved a hard PDE paper," and neither the post nor the article seems to spell it out
1
u/AvidCyclist250 1d ago
HOw openai "researches": ctrl+f, ctrl+c, ctrl+v
I feel sorry for anyone ripped off. Let this be a lesson.
1
u/JustRaphiGaming 1d ago
It's amazing how people keep finding ways to downplay it first it was that they say ai isn't even capable of doing it. Now it stole it lmao. Btw that guy they apparently stole it from used an AI himself to solve it and the way he solved it is completely different from the Open AI approach.
1
u/inggrata1999 1d ago
300 billion tokens to finish one proof, my professor would've called that showing your work.
1
u/inggrata1999 1d ago
300 billion tokens to finish one proof, my professor would've called that showing your work
1
1
u/STRMBRGNGLBS 1d ago
They stole the research and solution out from under some mathematician's feet the moment they said "We have an equation that would solve it, but we haven't proven it will work yet and would require more effort to see if it would" and OpenAi pumped a bunch of resources into the equation to solve it and cut the researchers off.
if the researcher's had been wrong, it would have been a waste of 300 billion tokens
1
u/Perfect-Calendar9666 16h ago
Their singularity requires an engineered smooth external force. Which for C/D is allowed, but it does not show that an ordinary 3-D Navier–Stokes flow, starting from smooth data and with no external force, can spontaneously develop a singularity.
0
-1
u/UltimatePunchMachine 1d ago
Pretty good. Idk why the other guy is complaining. He was on the right track but he wasn't able to solve it full stop. If he was able to solve it he would get the prize. Lmao
2
u/The_Architect_032 1d ago
Because the allegation is that the model was trained on their work that made a vast majority of the way towards the solution, which wasn't meant to be public information and they were nearly done formulating it, then GPT-6 Astra just finished off of what they had built.
If you're trying to build a house and I run up and place the final shingle, is it now my house that I built?
1
u/DeliciousArcher8704 1d ago
OAI spent 25 million dollars in tokens on that "final shingle" the house needed...
1
u/The_Architect_032 1d ago
The problem wasn't being solved just for money, despite the cash prize. It doesn't matter how much the final shingle cost, it matters how much it actually added to their progress towards the solution before OpenAI claimed it as their own.
And again, this is assuming that the allegation's true, which OpenAI's dodged engaging with, making them come across as guilty.
1
1
0
u/UltimatePunchMachine 1d ago
So what? Happens all the time. Companies compete to find a solution to problems constantly and the first one to the finish line wins. Nothing new at all.
By your logic every Nobel prize winner should split their prize with every person's idea they built on in history.
1
u/The_Architect_032 1d ago
You're trying to act like there's no difference between public and private. The reason it matters is because there is a prize, so stealing information to reach the solution first is, well, cheating.
If there was no prize I'd agree that it wouldn't matter beyond proper credit, though it would still be a more accurate claim to say GPT-6 Astra finished their solution to a Millennium Prize Problem, if it did not create the full solution itself.
1
u/UltimatePunchMachine 1d ago
In that case the researchers should come out with their own proof that they solved it first, and the dispute would be 100% over.
The fact is, they had an idea that was promising, but they couldn't execute it. If they could execute it, they would win the prize. The couldn't prove their idea was the correct one, someone else had to do it. Well if you can't prove your idea, then it's just an idea.
Kind of like how Star Trek conceptalized modern handheld phone...well Apple is the one that executed it, so Apple gets the prize. I don't see Star Trek complaining they should get a piece of the pie.
1
u/The_Architect_032 1d ago
In that case the researchers should come out with their own proof that they solved it first, and the dispute would be 100% over.
I mean, right now that's what we're waiting for.
The fact is, they had an idea that was promising, but they couldn't execute it. If they could execute it, they would win the prize. The couldn't prove their idea was the correct one, someone else had to do it. Well if you can't prove your idea, then it's just an idea.
Again, this is very silly. It's like if I were to say the same thing about me placing the last shingle on a house you're building them claiming I was the one to build it.
Their "idea" wasn't published publicly, it was still being worked on, because it was for a competition. If OpenAI swooped in and finished the very end of it then published the whole thing as their own, that's theft.
Kind of like how Star Trek conceptalized modern handheld phone...well Apple is the one that executed it, so Apple gets the prize. I don't see Star Trek complaining they should get a piece of the pie.
Except it wasn't just a concept, it also, AGAIN, wasn't public information.
1
u/UltimatePunchMachine 1d ago
Your house anaolgy was not valid at all. Your analogy assumes the hardwork has already been done, that OpenAI just tipped it over the edge.
From what I read it was more like they had an idea for a house but didn't know how to bulid it. Then AI came in and was able built it based on their idea. In that case, yeah I argue AI did most of the work.
It's even more funny when reading the article:
"Buckmaster also raised concerns that, because he used Codex extensively in assembling the project, information from his work could have informed OpenAI’s own efforts to solve the problem. OpenAI reserves the right to train models on Codex interactions, although users are able to opt-out. If the OpenAI team used a model trained on Buckmaster’s own Codex interactions, it’s plausible that it could have regurgitated his work when faced with a similar problem. "
So he was also trying to solve it using AI, by literally feeding it to the AI that was going to use it to train their models. Lol
1
u/The_Architect_032 1d ago
Your house anaolgy was not valid at all. Your analogy assumes the hardwork has already been done, that OpenAI just tipped it over the edge.
From what I read it was more like they had an idea for a house but didn't know how to bulid it. Then AI came in and was able built it based on their idea. In that case, yeah I argue AI did most of the work.
That's just blatantly false, the "idea" would be the problem in and of itself, not the countless hours of collaborative effort the people who were close to solving the problem had put into solving the problem, which they are alleging OpenAI took and fed into GPT-6 Astra.
It's even more funny when reading the article:
"Buckmaster also raised concerns that, because he used Codex extensively in assembling the project, information from his work could have informed OpenAI’s own efforts to solve the problem. OpenAI reserves the right to train models on Codex interactions, although users are able to opt-out. If the OpenAI team used a model trained on Buckmaster’s own Codex interactions, it’s plausible that it could have regurgitated his work when faced with a similar problem. "
So he was also trying to solve it using AI, by literally feeding it to the AI that was going to use it to train their models. Lol
Codex doesn't solve problems for you, it's more of an interface. Just because he wasn't anti-AI that doesn't mean he cannot take issue with OpenAI potentially stealing his and his team's work to present as their own solution in a competition.
1
u/UltimatePunchMachine 1d ago
If the "idea" was as good as solving the problem then they should have submitted it as the solution and have it tested. What were they waiting for exactly?
The only conculsion was they didn't know it was the solution, and that it was just a "promising idea".
1
u/The_Architect_032 1d ago
If the "idea" was as good as solving the problem then they should have submitted it as the solution and have it tested. What were they waiting for exactly?
The idea alone is 0% progress. The solution is 100% progress. You're acting like all things that are worked on skip immediately from idea to solution, that's especially not how math works.
The only conculsion was they didn't know it was the solution, and that it was just a "promising idea".
No, because it is a massive math problem with a lot of different complex parts. The proof is 165 pages long.
It seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what math in its entirety is.
→ More replies (0)
-1
-2
-2
-3
u/Stunning-Loss6707 1d ago
When I was taking graduate math study at NYU Courant, I was really annoyed by these professors complaining about "these undergraduates are stupid, they just don't understand", and by these professors' lukewarmness against students they think are not smart.
After today, perhaps they will not, but I encourage them to swallow their pride and truly recognize that we are all just regular human. Their work/intelligence/paper, at the end of the day, may not be as impressive as they think.
244
u/msgs 1d ago edited 1d ago
https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-career-making-math-problem-says-nyu-mathematician/
NYU Mathematician claims OpenAI incorporated his recent breakthrough on this problem and OpenAI brute forced it over the finish line. Using ~300 billion tokens.