tristanj

7 ms·

1.
by tristanj 3d ago
I actually misworded this. OpenAI did not ask to remove a co-author, they only invited Buckmaster as a coauthor and not Alpöge. Having Alpöge (an Anthropic employee) on an OpenAI paper is bad optics, so they only wanted Buckmaster.
2.
by tristanj 4d ago
You realize 1) There were no personal threats, you're being deceptive here and 2) Bushmaster threatened Bubeck (of OpenAI) first? Bushmaster redacted 90% of their conversation to stir up as much FUD as possible, but you can review Bube
3.
by tristanj 4d ago
False. A usage agreement between two private companies is not considered public access. Your definition falls apart upon basic scrutiny. Under your current definition, Mythos is currently in public access.
4.
by tristanj 4d ago
The author put zero rational thought into this. If Anthropic is legally required to release the weights of any publicly accessible model, their logical response will just be to stop offering public models. Anthropic gets most of its revenue
5.
by tristanj 4d ago
Not when you have 10,000 concurrent agents attacking the problem. OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. They likely tried every approach in published literature, which includes the 2023 approach by Luis and Diego.
6.
by tristanj 4d ago
1) OpenAI and Buckmaster did not solve the same problem. Per https://x.com/IlinVasily29521/status/2097554700321329393 , here is a breakdown of who solved what. Tristan + Levent: 3D incompressible Euler with fo
7.
by tristanj 4d ago
Relevant, but it's already rumored that OpenAI and Anthropic have made very significant progress on two more Millennium Prize problems. They're in a race to solve the next problem. OpenAI needs to solve another to shut down the (b
8.
by tristanj 5d ago
You might be right. At this rate, if AI solves the remaining five problems, we're heading towards a hilarious situation where all the Millennium Problems are solved, but nobody wants to claim the prize money.
9.
by tristanj 5d ago
Interesting. It seems this carve-out was added when they rewrote the rules in 2018. In the original rules [0], it says: Before consideration, a proposed solution must be published in a refereed mathematics journal of world-wide repute,
10.
by tristanj 5d ago
It's worth mentioning that OpenAI will not be eligible for the Millennium Prize for quite a while. Per the rules listed https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millenni... , Clay Mathema
11.
by tristanj 5d ago
Smart move by them for waiting until the drama died down before making a completely neutral statement. The statement is so sterile they don't even mention who solved it. The word "OpenAI" doesn't appear at all.
12.
by tristanj 5d ago
It's baseless speculation and unfounded accusations of plagarism. OpenAI now categorically denies this: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/10/science/tristan-buckmaste... “We can say categorically that
13.
by tristanj 6d ago
The team also had access to internal Anthropic models.
14.
by tristanj 6d ago
> Expensive, yes, impossible, no. The comment by tedsanders you linked directly contradicts your claim. From your linked comment: There's no reason to believe that anything they did in ChatGPT led to our solution; it's ju
15.
by tristanj 6d ago
The timeline here does not support your argument. Quoting from Buckmaster's statement: For most of the past year progress was slow. We worked through the literature and upgraded various preliminary results, up to obtaining finite t
16.
by tristanj 6d ago
Which is still a true statement, and you're being deceptive in your framing here. You're conflating two completely different things. First, that OpenAI statement is in response to Buckmaster's plagiarism accusations regarding
17.
by tristanj 6d ago
It is very unlikely to be plagiarized, and claims of plagiarism are largely unfounded and show a lack of understanding of the situation. They fall apart when reviewing the timeline, and what was actually solved. This is the timeline: On Jun
18.
by tristanj 6d ago
Option A can be accidentally undone with a few clicks. Option B is legally binding and permanent.
19.
by tristanj 6d ago
They're not equivalent. The one in ChatGPT settings only applies to ChatGPT. The one on the OpenAI privacy portal applies to all OpenAI products, present and future.
20.
by tristanj 7d ago
This form is legally binding and has more legal weight than just clicking a toggle. If they still train on my data, they can get sued, and I'll get a payout.
21.
by tristanj 7d ago
That OpenAI setting helps, but there is a better way to do it. To completely opt-out of training, submit a request via the OpenAI privacy portal. Visit this website https://privacy.openai.com/policies/en/ , click
22.
by tristanj 7d ago
This post is out of date. OpenAI quietly updated the references on their paper earlier today and added several authors.
23.
by tristanj 7d ago
Velocity raptor is a free game that accurately simulates the effects of special relativity. It slows down the speed of light to 3m/s and you solve puzzles as a cute dinosaur. https://www.testtubegames.com/velocityraptor
24.
by tristanj 7d ago
Yes. Pretty much all the models that don't suck are trained on user data, either directly or via derived synthetic data. Many upstart Chinese labs got around the user data issue by just buying copious amounts of Claude and ChatGPT sess
25.
by tristanj 7d ago
I've wrote about this elsewhere https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49621648 and will reproduce my comment. No, it’s genuinely impossible to know how much of Buckmaster’s Codex data is in OpenAI’s training set. First,
26.
by tristanj 7d ago
To explain who solved what (I copied from here: https://x.com/IlinVasily29521/status/2097554700321329393 ) Tristan + Levent: 3D incompressible Euler with forcing OpenAI: 3D incompressible Euler without forci
27.
by tristanj 7d ago
OpenAI never asked for the removal of another coauthor. The parent comment is spreading misinformation. OpenAI offered to let Buckmaster to write their Millennium Prize paper, so long as Alpoge (who works at Anthropic) was not a coauthor on
28.
by tristanj 8d ago
Don't fall for this. This is big tech propaganda, trying to convince you that copyright is bad so they can avoid copyright lawsuits and use everyone's data without paying licensing fees. Without copyright, they can use your data f
29.
by tristanj 8d ago
I think OpenAI desperately wants to make a blanket denial that they didn't look at or train on Buckmaster and Alpöge's chat transcripts, but know they cannot, because the data is anonymized. The fact they can't make a blanket
30.
by tristanj 8d ago
OpenAI cannot give a definitive answer here, because it is genuinely unknowable if Buckmaster's data is in the training set. OpenAI explicitly uses user feedback (the thumbs up or thumbs down ratings), as RLHF to train models. However,

More ›