5 ms·

- Tristan and his co-author (Harvard/Anthropic) developed a theoretical framework and validated it using Codex and Claude. - OpenAI did related research around

by b89kim 8d ago

- Tristan and his co-author (Harvard/Anthropic) developed a theoretical framework and validated it using Codex and Claude. - OpenAI did related research around similar timeframe. - Tristan claimed OpenAI offered a proposal that included dropping the Anthropic-affiliated co-author. - Sebastian (a prominent OpenAI researcher involved) denied these claims. - Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their session. - OpenAI's theory may hold up, but it will require long-term validation to confirm.

b89kim 8d ago
If OpenAI's proposal is true, it strongly implies they accessed Tristan's private session logs. OpenAI's 'Terms of Use' allow using Codex session logs for model improvement. However, using private user sessions to develop research would still be highly controversial. Separately, Terence Tao noted there is a low probability OpenAI actually solved the general regularity problem.
- b89kim 8d ago
  OpenAI addressed the dispute in official and denied direct usage of data. However, they acknowledged the possibility that session data was used for model improvement. > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models .
ex-aws-dude 8d ago
> Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their session. Its not about accessing the session, its whether the session ended up in the training run for the next version of the model That's normal practice for these models and it seems like that was the case since OAI added a disclaimer Obviously they can't causally prove it helped though since these models are incomprehensible
golly_ned 8d ago
Sebastian did not deny those claims. He affirmed them, and apologized. It’s true that Tristan has no concrete evidence OAI accessed their session. It’s impossible for him to have that without OAI’s say so. Why are you framing things so pro OAI?
- b89kim 8d ago
  Sebastien denied most accusations and apologized only for inappropriate wording, providing his perspective. - He insisted that OpenAI initiated research based solely on rumors and never accessed their Codex sessions. - He mistakenly believed Tristan and Levent were solving the same problem in Anthropic. - proposed two option. (1) Tristan becoming the lead author to revise OpenAI’s work, or (2) OpenAI providing internal model to support and bridge their research. - Sebastien insisted there was no intention to alter authorship. He was simply uncomfortable sharing OpenAI’s work,model with an Anthropic researcher. Additionally, He believed Levent’s credit seemed limited as their work focused on Euler. - complained that negotiations with Tristan and Levent were difficult [1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310#m https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...

by b89kim 8d ago

b89kim 8d ago

If OpenAI's proposal is true, it strongly implies they accessed Tristan's private session logs. OpenAI's 'Terms of Use' allow using Codex session logs for model improvement. However, using private user sessions to develop research would still be highly controversial. Separately, Terence Tao noted there is a low probability OpenAI actually solved the general regularity problem.

b89kim 8d ago
OpenAI addressed the dispute in official and denied direct usage of data. However, they acknowledged the possibility that session data was used for model improvement. > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models .

ex-aws-dude 8d ago

> Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their session. Its not about accessing the session, its whether the session ended up in the training run for the next version of the model That's normal practice for these models and it seems like that was the case since OAI added a disclaimer Obviously they can't causally prove it helped though since these models are incomprehensible

golly_ned 8d ago

Sebastian did not deny those claims. He affirmed them, and apologized. It’s true that Tristan has no concrete evidence OAI accessed their session. It’s impossible for him to have that without OAI’s say so. Why are you framing things so pro OAI?

b89kim 8d ago
Sebastien denied most accusations and apologized only for inappropriate wording, providing his perspective. - He insisted that OpenAI initiated research based solely on rumors and never accessed their Codex sessions. - He mistakenly believed Tristan and Levent were solving the same problem in Anthropic. - proposed two option. (1) Tristan becoming the lead author to revise OpenAI’s work, or (2) OpenAI providing internal model to support and bridge their research. - Sebastien insisted there was no intention to alter authorship. He was simply uncomfortable sharing OpenAI’s work,model with an Anthropic researcher. Additionally, He believed Levent’s credit seemed limited as their work focused on Euler. - complained that negotiations with Tristan and Levent were difficult [1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310#m https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...