OpenAI might have stolen another major proof

ttamnd about 2 hours ago 19 commentsRead Article on twitter.com

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 682 words in the discussion.

Discussion (19 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

mlazos•1 minute ago

It’s crazy to me that companies/researchers share important data with these AI labs, you’re basically giving them your secret sauce which they then share with all of your competitors via training on conversations. At the same time I don’t really know alternatives other than a slightly less than frontier local LLM. Not sure how good they are at math.

r0ze-at-hn•12 minutes ago

Doing some research and at this point doing it very much in the open with dates on GitHub so if any AI Lab says they re-discover my exact work it will be obvious that the AI used or was trained on my work. I am guessing anyone in a similar situation is now thinking about how they date their existing work if the math is done, but the proses are not.

Cloudef•18 minutes ago

Relying on cloud services is a big liability. I'd think twice before feeding data to these LLM cloud products. If you make them a fundamental part of your product / development / workflow, be ready for the eventual moment the pricing and terms change.

jarofgreen•15 minutes ago

Original posts

https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240535270608201

https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240536885387540

https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240537520615623

pera•6 minutes ago

Everything you say can and will be trained against you

drivebyhooting•about 2 hours ago

If we put aside the idea of credit for a moment, it sounds like human/AI collaboration is indeed super charging discovery.

dash2•27 minutes ago

Can we get a link to the mathstodon post?

Grimblewald•about 1 hour ago

people seem to miss tge point of this. The problem isn't about credit, its about portraying these models as more competant than they really are. It fuels idiotic statements like jensen huangs recent "agi achieved" statement, which fuels an already dangerous financial fire.

ramblerman•about 1 hour ago

As per the post, this mathematician has been working on this problem for 20 years. So either he was "just" about to breakthrough and this is a big coincidence, or Astra was able to push through the remaining block of 5-10-20-never years it might have taken.

That's still a pretty big marker of competence in my eyes.

The point of controversy seems to be who gets credit

jeltz•25 minutes ago

To me that is not a credit thing because this removes a piece evidence for the ability of AI to come up with novel ideas while still making it a useful tool.

mentalgear•25 minutes ago

The big LLM providers, desperate for good PR before their IPOs, are all actively looking for 'almost finished' hard problems, e.g. where the conceptual / creative parts are almost done and they only need to throw their VC-backed resources at to brute-force through the remaining computationally expensive problem (lean, etc) and claim 'they have solved it'.

It's an utterly disrespectful, exploitive process, but all in line with exploitative predator capitalism of the stock market and big companies, now exploiting the knowledge / academia domain for scraps with a thin veneer of 'for science' PR.

galkk•about 1 hour ago

I want bunch of lawsuits, because the way things are described now produces perverse initiatives like try to discuss every possible idea that comes to mind with llm and if any of it works later claim the llm stole it.

I would like to see chat logs etc and understand how much of a progress was done by human.

Legend2440•about 2 hours ago

This is a really weak claim. The evidence they offer is just "someone somewhere says they had a discussion with AI about the topic at some point".

They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.

itake•6 minutes ago

The AI only seem to solve the problems that it had human trading data on…

If this wasn’t human driven, I’d expect to see other problems within that problem. Space solved not just the ones that it had chat data on.

rnijveld•about 2 hours ago

I would say there is a significant difference between AI discovering this completely on its own versus AI creating the finishing connecting part by connecting relevant data. Maybe this claim is too strong, but if part of it is true then the claims that OpenAI have made would be too strong as well.

To me it would feel more like how LLMs seem to work for me personally: incapable of unique work, but very capable of capturing large amounts of data and connecting the dots.

viccis•34 minutes ago

Some mathematicians I know who've been following this have realized that they'd all gotten some emails from people they now know to be affiliated with OpenAI/Anthropic asking questions about their research in a way that seemed like scooping attempts.

Also, a lot of my mathematicians buddies have reported students basically asking if it's worth ever doing grad school for pure math, and even very motivated students are looking for other options now. It's not because they aren't passionate about it, it's that they don't want to work for another half decade or more just to have to start their careers all over.

All of this so that OpenAI and Anthropic can get into math result dick measuring to gas up their IPOs. Sickening.

mdspan•25 minutes ago

Curious, what other options are prospective pure math grad students considering?

ethanwillis•13 minutes ago

I think Anthropic told them being a plumber is a great option.

1337h4xx•about 2 hours ago

TL/DR: Mathematician opted out of training on 29-JUN and asked OpenAI whether they trained on his data and was told that it "did not happen" but it clearly did.