So I see someone dedicating a sizeable portion of their life on a discovery and not being credited is the problem here. Otherwise it would be published in a journal anyway.
However, the mathematicians could easily declare whether they had the toggle on or off. Yet curiously, they will not say!
https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560
Especially in recent years the mathematics community has worked very much in good faith, and a lot of effort is spent trying to give appropriate credit for ideas. Even when ideas are discovered in parallel if it turns out that previous work contained the same essential idea it is by and far regarded as best practice to give priority in this case. The point, in good academic practice, is to maintain the health of the practice at large.
As Terence Tao explains in that post, the goal of mathematics is not only to solve big problems. And, even if one were very single-mindedly focused on solving big problems, it is still (in the long term) better to maintain the health of the community at large so that problems which are out of reach at the moment may be in reach again in the future. Good academic practice is one part of this culture.
Re-using advances done by others is necessary in maths.
This is how hard sciences do progress.
On my open source projects, there is always a big "WIP" messy phase which I don't "really" publish... because it is messy.
I'm not criticizing them, but I hope this race towards the first-best result or AGI doesn't blind them to making good decisions such as not using their users' data without consent.
And lying about whether the proof was done by mathematicians or OpenAI is bad humanity, so.
2. There was a $1,000,000 reward
Anyone with a decent amount of social power is aware and skilled at maintaining these conditions whether consciously or not.
The praxes are non-trivial: awareness, bravery, flexibility, and seflessness.
trescenzi•25m ago
heaney-555•19m ago
What the mathematicians could do is reveal whether they had the data-sharing opt-out on or not. But curiously, as far as I've seen, none of them will answer that question!
cmiles8•18m ago
brookst•14m ago
heaney-555•12m ago
aenis•14m ago
Most people do not understand that the main reason for the subscriptions is to give OpenAI and Anthropic the priceless, unique data that shows how the models are used, what people are building, how they are building, which solutions they consider OK, which they consider bad -- they purchase this data with cheap tokens. This is their only moat, really. If some really proprietary IP gets swept in the training data set its not really OpenAI's fault -- its the researchers'. Have something secretive? Dont fricking paste this into chatgpt. Duh!
(I'd definitely not think OpenAI/Anthropic ignore the opt outs, or ZDRs. All it would take is one whistleblower to get them into terminal troubles. And why would they do it? They are not in the business of scooping unique IP -- they are in the business of understanding how AI is used across a variety of mundane, day to day work of individuals and companies. Useless math problem is good (or bad, as in this case) PR, but otherwise entirely worthless for the labs.
socialcommenter•10m ago
[0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240535270608201
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638353
heaney-555•7m ago
What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
asimpletune•9m ago
heaney-555•7m ago
What I was referring to is the fact that neither Levent Alpöge nor Tristan Buckmaster will answer this question.
yturijea•19m ago
fractorial•16m ago
heaney-555•10m ago
OpenAI, as with all AI companies, openly admits that it trains on user data unless the user opts out. But the mathematicians have not said whether or not they opted out.
>Did the transcripts of any of the agents include a tool call whose result including user data?
They have already explicitly denied this.
xxs•13m ago
worldsavior•12m ago
heaney-555•7m ago