6 ms·

> If this is true he should release the actual emails these were statements while on a call, and at least the career comment Bubeck has admitted to while doing

> If this is true he should release the actual emails these were statements while on a call, and at least the career comment Bubeck has admitted to while doing damage control ("I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.)"[1]). [1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310 https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...

dgellow 8d ago
What a horrible response from Bubeck. How did he think that would make him and OpenAI look good to tweet that?
- ignoramous 8d ago
  If we're allowed to arm-chair judge harshly: It isn't uncommon for those (anybody) on the cusp of "greatness" to be delusional when challenged: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-character-syndrome https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-c...
  - fn-mote 8d ago
    Who here is on the cusp of greatness?? Or thinks they are? I really don’t understand which party you are referring to.
    - CamperBob2 7d ago
      Anyone who comes close to solving a Millennium problem can honestly say they are on the cusp of greatness. Not sure what this question proves either way.
- adastra22 8d ago
  Did we read the same tweet? It felt very forthright and level-headed to me. Not at all what I expected.
  - geocar 7d ago
    He seemed to know a lot about what was going on in the state of the art despite not being a fluid dynamics expert or having any in “the project”, and absolutely nothing about what his own employees did with Tristan. The most uncomfortable piece is where he shows screenshots “proving” his earnestness is unrewarded instead of the chats that are actually being complained about. That he does so with tremendous gymnastics is perhaps soothing to investors, but every researcher I show this post to today says “see I knew ‘AI’ would steal my research” So yeah, maybe we are reading different things.
  - fn-mote 8d ago
    > Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic So using someone’s models makes someone who works for the competitor not “independent”? When their coauthor is? What does that even mean? I almost stopped reading this extra long post entirely at that point. This is not a good look in my book.
    - djokkataja 8d ago
      The first part of the sentence is important: > Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. If an Anthropic employee is doing independent research, but with models that aren't available to the public (because they're internal models), then . . . idk. It's not clear to me why that should necessarily require a refusal to cooperate between OpenAI and Anthropic employees who are excited about solving a problem like this. For me, the bigger question here is what "internal models" means to these employees, especially in the context of the OpenAI employees repeatedly avoiding directly answering whether their model had been trained on Tristan's and Levent's ongoing work on the problem. It had always seemed like a loophole that AI companies might be tempted to exploit: yeah, they can say that they won't train on your data, but if an AI company doesn't care about ethics, they might go ahead and train a model for internal use only on everyone's data anyway, just to have as much data as possible and potentially gain an advantage in what the company can internally do. They could never publicly release any versions of a model like that, of course. And of course this is speculation.
- johnnienaked 8d ago
  I especially loved the part where he claims they spent $60m on compute to push on N-S because of a Twitter rumor, and they totally didn't steal the idea from mathematicians using their tools.
  - exhilaration 7d ago
    When the authorities do that it's called parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
sinuhe69 8d ago
No wonder - they're all working for ant! Birds of a feather flock together.

dgellow 8d ago

What a horrible response from Bubeck. How did he think that would make him and OpenAI look good to tweet that?

ignoramous 8d ago
If we're allowed to arm-chair judge harshly: It isn't uncommon for those (anybody) on the cusp of "greatness" to be delusional when challenged: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-character-syndrome https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-c...
- fn-mote 8d ago
  Who here is on the cusp of greatness?? Or thinks they are? I really don’t understand which party you are referring to.
  - CamperBob2 7d ago
    Anyone who comes close to solving a Millennium problem can honestly say they are on the cusp of greatness. Not sure what this question proves either way.
adastra22 8d ago
Did we read the same tweet? It felt very forthright and level-headed to me. Not at all what I expected.
- geocar 7d ago
  He seemed to know a lot about what was going on in the state of the art despite not being a fluid dynamics expert or having any in “the project”, and absolutely nothing about what his own employees did with Tristan. The most uncomfortable piece is where he shows screenshots “proving” his earnestness is unrewarded instead of the chats that are actually being complained about. That he does so with tremendous gymnastics is perhaps soothing to investors, but every researcher I show this post to today says “see I knew ‘AI’ would steal my research” So yeah, maybe we are reading different things.
- fn-mote 8d ago
  > Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic So using someone’s models makes someone who works for the competitor not “independent”? When their coauthor is? What does that even mean? I almost stopped reading this extra long post entirely at that point. This is not a good look in my book.
  - djokkataja 8d ago
    The first part of the sentence is important: > Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. If an Anthropic employee is doing independent research, but with models that aren't available to the public (because they're internal models), then . . . idk. It's not clear to me why that should necessarily require a refusal to cooperate between OpenAI and Anthropic employees who are excited about solving a problem like this. For me, the bigger question here is what "internal models" means to these employees, especially in the context of the OpenAI employees repeatedly avoiding directly answering whether their model had been trained on Tristan's and Levent's ongoing work on the problem. It had always seemed like a loophole that AI companies might be tempted to exploit: yeah, they can say that they won't train on your data, but if an AI company doesn't care about ethics, they might go ahead and train a model for internal use only on everyone's data anyway, just to have as much data as possible and potentially gain an advantage in what the company can internally do. They could never publicly release any versions of a model like that, of course. And of course this is speculation.
johnnienaked 8d ago
I especially loved the part where he claims they spent $60m on compute to push on N-S because of a Twitter rumor, and they totally didn't steal the idea from mathematicians using their tools.
- exhilaration 7d ago
  When the authorities do that it's called parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

sinuhe69 8d ago

No wonder - they're all working for ant! Birds of a feather flock together.