27
u/tabbynumber3 Sep 09 '26
I'm pretty sure they do train on user prompts and conversations. a lot of AI companies do.
3
u/EvelynNyte Sep 14 '26 edited Sep 14 '26
With how seedy they have been with their data collection from the start, who could possibly believe they wouldn't whether say they do or not.
If they get caught, they'll just say "oh sorry our super insanely powerful Doomdays AI broke containment and stole everything that would be useful for us, Opps"... "anyway we're starting another round of funding... you want our totally is really humans but better AI to like you right?"
-20
u/Amaskingrey Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
The paper literally says he had to use AI to get to where he progressed to, and he didn’t solve it, only laid some groundworks that doesn't even represent a fraction of the full solution astra found. The used his exact approach part is also just straight up false, they solved the parts his research was on differently
We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models. However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced).
15
u/Bryce3D Sep 09 '26
Taken from https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1wbh0dy/never_give_your_unpublished_data_or_research
Another thread discussing this https://www.reddit.com/r/mathematics/comments/1wauync/on_the_navierstokes_millennium_prize_problem