6 ms·
The core section: > However, communications quickly became contentious. According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stoke
by afavour 7d ago
The core section:
> However, communications quickly became contentious. According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stokes solution—but only if Alpöge’s name was removed from the work and if the write-up would acknowledge the problem had been resolved by an internal OpenAI model. Buckmaster refused, in part because he was troubled by the question of what OpenAI's system had actually seen. For example, Buckmaster said the company did not initially give him a clear answer about whether its agents had access to the pair's logs on Codex (which is an OpenAI product).
> OpenAI executives have denied that any employee or AI agent saw the pair’s work before the researchers released it publicly on 7 September. But there still remains a separate question: Could the pair's work have reached OpenAI's models through its training data?
> OpenAI’s blog announcing the Navier-Stokes solution does not dismiss the possibility: “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from [Buckmaster and Alpöge’s] usage of our products helped improve our models .”
- huurtehoog 7d agoSo, this company wants everyone and every organization on Earth to use their software, and reserve the right to then tell anyone how the resulting work can be published and credited? Real solid business model there, how could it ever fail?
- LiamPowell 7d agoThat's not what the comment you're replying to or the article says. I feel like I'm going crazy reading comments here and elsewhere, am I not reading the same articles as everyone else?
- huurtehoog 7d agoThere's a lot of unverified hearsay but the crux of the problem is that there is controversy around using this company's tools, the attribution of the resulting work, and the company for some reason competing with its users. The whole thing reeks and my point is: people won't ask for the chromatography spectrum of the turd, they will walk away.
- aeon_ai 7d agoYou are. Most people have just long decided to forgo nuance for the simplicity of snark and hate as a default response
- elgertam 7d agoThe site should have a disclaimer at the bottom: "A Sam Altman Production."
- embedding-shape 7d ago99% of the world (maybe more) have 0 idea of who Sam Altman is. Add "We might take credit for things you figure out, if we can infer it from your prompts" and it might actually affect people's usage of these tools.
- olmo23 7d ago> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from [Buckmaster and Alpöge’s] usage of our products helped improve our models. Well yeah, if you use the free product they train on your data, ... I thought this was widely understood?
- greggoB 7d agoIf you read Buckmasters statement, he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc.
- aenis 7d agoThe paid subscriptions have opt-out for sharing data for training purposes. I think it's on by default.
- y-curious 7d agoI don’t know because I use Anthropic, but I would eat my hat if this was on by default.
- magicalhippo 7d agoIt's opt-out for personal plans, and opt-in for business pla s and API. This is explained on the page[1] linked to from the privacy section of the pricing page. [1]: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is-used-to-improve-model-performance https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is...
- Tenemo 7d agoPaying for an account doesn't opt you out by itself, right? Has he stated anywhere that he actually opted out? But if not, then I also don't understand why OpenAI's communications about this have been so vague, they could've just said that he didn't opt out, using those chats in training data follows their ToS and that's it (whether that's "fair" is a separate discussion).
- JohnKemeny 7d ago> but only if Alpöge’s name was removed This is blatant scientific misconduct.
- Gabrys1 7d agoAny idea why OpenAI cared about this name removed from the paper?
- Topfi 7d agoHe works for Anthropic nowadays.
- cman1444 7d agoBecause he works for Anthropic. Supposedly this project was not part of his official capacity as an employee of theirs. However, if they had published first, it's hard to imagine Anthropic not taking the opportunity to claim "our employee solved this Millennium prize problem using our AI".
- Gabrys1 7d agoAh, I missed that part, thanks!
- dguest 7d ago> [the Open AI rep] twice asserted that he wanted Levent removed from authorship, and said it would all be simple if only it were not the case that, and it was so annoying that, Levent works at Anthropic. Later on the author claims that the OpenAI rep threatened to ruin his career if he didn't go along with them. Worth noting that there were two versions of the problem: - the proof in the equations with viscosity (which OpenAI claims to have solved), and - the proof with no viscosity (which Tristian and Levent solved) What is confusing is that if OpenAI can prove their independence from Levent and Tristian, they could take full credit for proving the viscous version of the problem. Offering to give one author credit for something they proved seems like a strange choice: if nothing else it seems obvious that it would drive a very deep wedge between the two authors of the non-viscous version. see https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf#page=3 https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf#page=3
- jrflo 7d agoI could see their comment on user training data as a bit of a CYA statement, but removing Alpoge from the paper is awful. Has really soured what could have been a huge moment for AI progress.