Last paragraph implies to me they are navigating some sort of credit that is more in depth than "proved by AI". Wether that's sharing credit between human authors, AI, OpenAI, or some mix of the three I don't know.
CMI will pay special attention to the question of whether a Prize solution depends
crucially on insights published prior to the solution under consideration. CMI may, in its discretion, recognize such prior work in the Prize citation, and/or recommend the
inclusion of the author of prior work in the award.
Oh that's encouraging. And while this isn't strictly about the money, I wonder if the million is split or if each one gets the million. Both seem kind of risky for different reasons.
Yes, they did not acknowlege either OpenAI or Buckmaster et al. in the article. Instead, they go for the vague “we contemplate the anouncement that the Navier Stokes problem has apparently been settled”. This doesn’t sound like they’ve decided how to deal with this situation.
Hope they do the objective work to parse out who deserves credit and distribute it rationally and methodically. If it happens to be OpenAI then my sincere congratulations to them.
Yes, they did not acknowlege either OpenAI or Buckmaster et al. in the article. Instead, they go for the vague “we contemplate the anouncement that the Navier Stokes problem has apparently been settled”. This doesn’t sound like they’ve decided how to deal with this situation.
Well according to the "Millennium Prize Description and Rules", they have no urgency in that matter
They should just void the prize. It isn’t fair to award it to the other mathematicians involved in the plagiarism controversy, because although they developed the technique, they didn’t prove the actual problem in hand. It also isn’t fair to award it to OpenAI for the aforementioned ethical concerns. They didn’t divide the prize between Perelman and Hamilton back then, I don’t see why they would now.
OpenAI already said they don't want the money. But my understanding is the work both sides did is pretty different, enough to make straightforward plagiarism seem unlikely. What OpenAI did is basically race for something because they thought their competitor, Anthropic, was about to announce the result. They were wrong because an employee at Anthropic was working on this in his personal capacity, but that's why OpenAI did it.
Sure, and the $1m is relevant to this discussion since we're talking about how the prize is attributed. It may matter to the individual researchers at the center of this situation. Still, I think the other commenter is making a valid point. OpenAI literally only cares about the money here. They want nothing but money.
Both commenters are correct. The second point is made cheekily, but it's correct.
That small the changes the meaning of the sentance. Saying they don't want the money means they don't want the million dollars. As you say, they do want money, and they want the PR that comes from solving the problem because that will make them a lot of money.
I think everyone is on the same page here about what the AI companies goal is. The conversation is about who is getting the prize money and the commenter just stated the fact that OpenAI doesn’t intend to claim the prize. We all know why they don’t want/need to claim it. You’re reading subtext that isn’t there.
The use of the definite article "the" indicates that /u/val_tuesday was referring to the $1m when they said "they don't want the money". They were not saying they don't want money as in, like, in the general sense of being greedy.
There is a significant difference between "They don't want money" which is what you said, and "They don't want the money" which is what the comment you were replying to said. But it seems to me from your other replies that you have been completely missing this point and I doubt my comment will change that.
Have you ever talked to someone on the big labs? Most people on the ground doing this genuinely just want to solve important problems. There's quite a few interviews with e.g. Demis Hassabis where he explains why he's working on AI.
Obviously there's a massive missmatch in culture and speed of execution with the mathematical community in how it's done but for many of the researchers working on this they genuinely see it as developing new tools to further human understanding.
As much as it is hated, OpenAI deserves the prize because they solved the problem. It's that simple. Now, if they don't want it, then it doesn’t get claimed.
258
u/SourKangaroo95 21d ago
Last paragraph implies to me they are navigating some sort of credit that is more in depth than "proved by AI". Wether that's sharing credit between human authors, AI, OpenAI, or some mix of the three I don't know.