5 ms·

> They were coordinating with OpenAI regarding a publishing timeline, but could not come to an agreement, Skimming the PDFs it seems much more dramatic than th

> They were coordinating with OpenAI regarding a publishing timeline, but could not come to an agreement, Skimming the PDFs it seems much more dramatic than that? It sounds like at least one of them is concerned OpenAI "solved" the problem by having their internal model use the chats of the independent researchers and want to claim the credit instead? I don't know. The tone is pretty accusational though: > the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag. > I was shown a prompt and told the internal research model had simply been given the problem statement. Levent had been told by Sebastien “very little human input” had been used. This turned out not to be true. Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a number of things that was tried, that work had started on the unforced problem, that the team first set the model on easier problems, including Euler, that even the prompt that had been shown to me had been written by prompting Codex, and that an insane amount of compute had been used. > I asked when the first prompt had been sent by them. This question was not answered directly by OpenAI for some time. Eventually it was agreed that it had been sent in the past few days, after information about our work had reached OpenAI. > I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. [0] [0]: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

tristanj 9d ago
Yeah these are major accusations. But the story is incomplete, the conversation is missing a lot of details. It's not clear who was working on what, and when. The entire thing feels rushed, like they wanted to get this result published and out the door quickly.
- deleted 9d ago
  [deleted]
cma 9d ago
Does he claim to have opted out of training too?
- kzrdude 9d ago
  There are various forces at play here, academic honesty requires them to disclose any inputs regardless of license or ToS circumstances. While common sense reminds us here that if you send your data to an external entity’s computer, you are no longer in control of said data. The lines have blurred here clearly over the last decade, but that should have made the theory yet more clear to everyone involved: your data will be vacuumed up unless you keep it sealed. Use your own computer if you want to be in control.
  - cma 8d ago
    But if they didn't opt out of training, did they want OpenAI to opt out for them? Also they need to audit anyone they sent drafts to to make sure they opted out before submitting it. I'd prefer things be opt in, and especially not start opt out, then try to trick you opt in with a popup defaulting to opt-in, like Anthropic did on consumer plans, but if they submitted anything on an opted-in plan it's not reasonable to be mad it trained on it. Even still, I also believe for significant reasons that OpenAI would ignore the opt-out in selective cases and could be in the wrong here. And the threats and terms they offered seem wrong either way, pending more context.
    - kzrdude 8d ago
      If you don't trust the other party, then it doesn't matter how the checkbox is set. The fundamental rule, IMO, is don't send precious or secret data to a third party.
lhd1 9d ago
I find the framing a little strange, a sort of David vs Goliath (with his enormous computational resources at his disposal). Since Levent is at Anthropic whose internal models are presumably as capable as anything OpenAI has. So why wasn't Anthropic behind their effort? Why did Tristan use OpenAI's models when it should have been known was a potential outcome? I understand they wanted a normal math collaboration but presumably what Levent brought was his resources (as far as I can see Navier-Stokes is not his speciality). Normally these things are hashed out formally beforehand to avoid the sort of thing now happening.
- rf_physics 8d ago
  They were working on it for almost a year, and Buckmaster has evidently been interested in Navier-Stokes for a while. This seems to be more of an innocent collaboration between two researchers than a strong company PR effort. Maybe Anthropic should have stepped in and made a large team to help them finish the proof (and maybe they tried and didn't succeed, who knows). If what he wrote is accurate, it does suggest that OAI is effectively extremely hostile to cutting edge researchers (eg, if we hear rumors about your partial success on a problem that has huge PR benefits, then we'll assemble a strike team of researchers with unlimited compute to claim the win for ourselves, possibly by training on your data). It's also not a good look for them to request author removals based on company affiliations. I think what you have in mind is more appropriate for more normal corporate projects and the like. But academic collaborations are not usually so political/'profit' driven, if that makes sense.
- defmacr0 8d ago
  > So why wasn't Anthropic behind their effort? Presumably because this was something Levent did in his spare time and because it was not obvious that this work would eventually lead to a breakthrough. > Why did Tristan use OpenAI's models when it should have been known was a potential outcome? I'm sure in the past he had less cynical feelings about OpenAI and their penchant for academic fraud. > I understand they wanted a normal math collaboration but presumably what Levent brought was his resources (as far as I can see Navier-Stokes is not his speciality) I think you're not giving the guy enough credit in saying that his contribution came down to having an API key for Anthropic models. > Normally these things are hashed out formally beforehand to avoid the sort of thing now happening. How would that have helped? That agreement (which may well still exist) would not have involved OpenAI.

tristanj 9d ago

Yeah these are major accusations. But the story is incomplete, the conversation is missing a lot of details. It's not clear who was working on what, and when. The entire thing feels rushed, like they wanted to get this result published and out the door quickly.

deleted 9d ago
[deleted]

cma 9d ago

Does he claim to have opted out of training too?

kzrdude 9d ago
There are various forces at play here, academic honesty requires them to disclose any inputs regardless of license or ToS circumstances. While common sense reminds us here that if you send your data to an external entity’s computer, you are no longer in control of said data. The lines have blurred here clearly over the last decade, but that should have made the theory yet more clear to everyone involved: your data will be vacuumed up unless you keep it sealed. Use your own computer if you want to be in control.
- cma 8d ago
  But if they didn't opt out of training, did they want OpenAI to opt out for them? Also they need to audit anyone they sent drafts to to make sure they opted out before submitting it. I'd prefer things be opt in, and especially not start opt out, then try to trick you opt in with a popup defaulting to opt-in, like Anthropic did on consumer plans, but if they submitted anything on an opted-in plan it's not reasonable to be mad it trained on it. Even still, I also believe for significant reasons that OpenAI would ignore the opt-out in selective cases and could be in the wrong here. And the threats and terms they offered seem wrong either way, pending more context.
  - kzrdude 8d ago
    If you don't trust the other party, then it doesn't matter how the checkbox is set. The fundamental rule, IMO, is don't send precious or secret data to a third party.

lhd1 9d ago

I find the framing a little strange, a sort of David vs Goliath (with his enormous computational resources at his disposal). Since Levent is at Anthropic whose internal models are presumably as capable as anything OpenAI has. So why wasn't Anthropic behind their effort? Why did Tristan use OpenAI's models when it should have been known was a potential outcome? I understand they wanted a normal math collaboration but presumably what Levent brought was his resources (as far as I can see Navier-Stokes is not his speciality). Normally these things are hashed out formally beforehand to avoid the sort of thing now happening.

rf_physics 8d ago
They were working on it for almost a year, and Buckmaster has evidently been interested in Navier-Stokes for a while. This seems to be more of an innocent collaboration between two researchers than a strong company PR effort. Maybe Anthropic should have stepped in and made a large team to help them finish the proof (and maybe they tried and didn't succeed, who knows). If what he wrote is accurate, it does suggest that OAI is effectively extremely hostile to cutting edge researchers (eg, if we hear rumors about your partial success on a problem that has huge PR benefits, then we'll assemble a strike team of researchers with unlimited compute to claim the win for ourselves, possibly by training on your data). It's also not a good look for them to request author removals based on company affiliations. I think what you have in mind is more appropriate for more normal corporate projects and the like. But academic collaborations are not usually so political/'profit' driven, if that makes sense.
defmacr0 8d ago
> So why wasn't Anthropic behind their effort? Presumably because this was something Levent did in his spare time and because it was not obvious that this work would eventually lead to a breakthrough. > Why did Tristan use OpenAI's models when it should have been known was a potential outcome? I'm sure in the past he had less cynical feelings about OpenAI and their penchant for academic fraud. > I understand they wanted a normal math collaboration but presumably what Levent brought was his resources (as far as I can see Navier-Stokes is not his speciality) I think you're not giving the guy enough credit in saying that his contribution came down to having an API key for Anthropic models. > Normally these things are hashed out formally beforehand to avoid the sort of thing now happening. How would that have helped? That agreement (which may well still exist) would not have involved OpenAI.