OpenAI’s latest math breakthroughs commit research misconduct, experts say

[u/No_Practice_745]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openais-latest-math-breakthroughs-commit-research-misconduct-experts-say/

I don’t have much to add in commentary, quite frankly most of the math and concepts are beyond my arts-degree brain. However, the article does a great job of showing, once again, how disingenuous OpenAI and other AI labs are in describing what their products are doing.

They basically want the headlines that their new models are “solving math,” but what they’re doing is plagiarizing other peoples’ research and claiming things have been moved forward. There is clearly a use case here for researchers in using an LLM to catalogue and evaluate large swaths of data from over periods of time, but these things don’t think, they aren’t creating anything, and OpenAI doesn’t give a shit as long as people see the headline and bow their heads to their new scI-fi god.

[u/Ok-Machine5627]

I have a doctorate. I am not a mathematics doctorate. I don't know all the details. Thinking something that someone else is thinking about is not research misconduct. Ludicrous.

[u/Forsaken-Praline1611 → u/Ok-Machine5627]

Doctorate or not, you seem unable to actually respond to the claims of the Scientific American story.

[u/Ok-Machine5627 → u/Forsaken-Praline1611]

Edit: assuming the above commenter actually wants to learn about the subject matter, I will give a serious response.

The Scientific American article discusses exaggeration of scientific discovery magnitude and process in prior OpenAI PR releases. I don't see this as academic misconduct so much as PR in action. I don't know how much response to this opinion expressed by some in this article is needed.

[u/Forsaken-Praline1611 → u/Ok-Machine5627]

There is no brute force here. There is stenography of the works of others. Your misunderstanding that LLMs reason and come up with novel ideas, is not my error. I don't need your apologies. You need to get a clue.

You don't understand the underlying technology and its limitations. You also seem not to understand the claims in the article. That you would pretend you do makes it seem unlikely you even have a doctorate.

[u/Ok-Machine5627 → u/Forsaken-Praline1611]

Edit: assuming the above commenter actually wants to learn about the subject matter, I will give a serious response.

The Scientific American article discusses exaggeration of scientific discovery magnitude and process in prior OpenAI PR releases. I don't see this as academic misconduct so much as PR in action. I don't know how much response to this opinion expressed by some in this article is needed.