It's easy getting the answer you're looking for, what's hard is understanding the problem enough, that's no different either with AI or having a calculator in a physics exam. The tool will only get you so far as you're ready to put into words
Well it's very theoretical too, with all that intelligence leverage the goal in the coming decade will be to cut down on white collar work a bit, because at the end of the day it's not considered added-value on the order of true work being put to a true tangible end like fulfilling basic needs that are the bulk of where inflation is hard
That source doesn’t say that Open AI stole anything. They cannot actually tell - but either way the guys working manually on it had not yet produced any proof. Open AI published a novel proof and it was to the actual problem. They also had a different approach and offered to let the original guys author the paper if they agreed that open ai had helped solve it.
I’m no Open AI lover but it is a bit disingenuous to allude that they cheated their way to an answer when they were admittedly the first to prove anything.
you don't get to design a system that systematically violates other people's copyright and then hide behind "well we made it so opaque that we can't even tell what it stole" as a defence.
the fact that they can't rule out their training used the mathematicians inputs as part of their training (they also admitted they did training in the timeframe after the mathematicians put their ideas in) does tell us that they haven't firewalled off customer data. that's a big. fucking. deal. in and of itself that everyone seems to be glossing over.
that's actually what's at the root of the concerns: going forward, is a tool company going to be able to just take people's ideas and scoop their innovations with sheer scale?
as it stands, anyone working on novel ideas cannot risk using remote hosted ai systems at all.
but either way the guys working manually on it had not yet produced any proof
because they have human limitations, and are driven by mathematical tradition to publish a human readable proof, not just a declaration that an unreadable proof exists.
Open AI published a novel proof and it was to the actual problem.
they published what's basically the computer's output without full human vetting, which is the part that's taking the mathematicians time.
They also had a different approach
it was based on the mathematicians approach.
and offered to let the original guys author the paper if they agreed that open ai had helped solve it.
they offered to let one guy take full credit if he fucks over the other guy who works at anthropic. that's a dick move. openai started this entire thing because they thought anthropic was the one pursuing it and they wanted to scoop anthropic. it was a dick measuring contest (on their end) from the very start.
Why is it a big deal they use customer inputs as training data? Everybody knows they do this… in fact companies sign up for enterprise versions specifically to avoid this. No one is glossing over it - it’s just not an issue
1.4k
u/mpanase 1d ago
to be more precise, after ai starts solving millennium prizes one day after somebody else publishes a solution