7 ms·
That's also incorrect. My understanding is that they asked the independent researcher to improve OpenAI's AI generated proof and be the lead author of the pape
by user43928 6d ago
That's also incorrect.
My understanding is that they asked the independent researcher to improve OpenAI's AI generated proof and be the lead author of the paper to publish OpenAI's result.
This is the paper where they did not want the Anthropic employee collaborating. Not their work.
- snaking0776 6d agoI think both Seb and Sam have said that it would’ve been simpler if the coauthor hadn’t worked at Anthropic so they’ve largely admitted they didn’t invite the collaborator as a coauthor because it would’ve look bad to have an Anthropic employee on the paper.
- jerkstate 6d agoseems pretty short-sighted - "our models are so good that even our competitors use them for the most advanced tasks" is pretty powerful marketing
- user43928 6d agoYes. The key point being that this concerns a new paper about OpenAI's result rather than the paper Buckmaster and Alpöge were working on.
- charlieyu1 6d agoLooks like a lot of insecurity from OpenAI. At the top level researchers move around at their own will, you don’t decide who they work for