Comment by cman1444
19 hours ago
You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers.
Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.
19 hours ago
You forgot possibility 3: OpenAI solved the problem without using any private training data from the two researchers.
Everyone in this thread seems to have made up their mind about OpenAI's guilt though.
If the new model is that good, and is chewing through open problems at an unprecedented rate, the smart move would have been to let the humans have their W on this one and present solutions to those other problems.
Especially if there really is a long list of them.
"Here are a few hundred proofs" is far more convincing than "We really Navier Stokes and coincidentally someone else did too but we don't know the details or anything, who us, definitely not."
It's a PR fiasco, and a cynic might wonder if it's entirely about the IPO.
I'm consistently entertained by how these companies, with the most advanced models on the planet, consistently do the most idiotic things.
It seems a perfectly reasonable possibility that Navier-Stokes is just the most easily solvable of the remaining problems, and that their new model is capable of solving it while not being capable of solving the others.
There's many cases of researchers racing to solve various problems after hearing that others are working on them. I don't think anyone's suggesting that it was a coincidence at all. In fact, OpenAI freely admits that they started working on the problem after hearing rumours that others were close to solving it. To me, that's not evidence of "cheating" in any way.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
An article post that wouldn't even amount to a white paper + the LEAN proof is not evidence of how they got to produce it.