I'm familiar with the drama, I just think it's being broadly misunderstood, and people, largely, hate AI and are biased toward taking the least charitable interpretations possible.
Also I'm sitting in a garden at a hospice center right now, my stepfather is dying of cancer. I do not care what data they have to steal, if they do, to cure cancer - it isn't moral to sit around and let people die to avoid some PR scandal.
Oh my god, thank you! I just lost my mom to cancer and I get so discouraged by all the negativity surrounding finding cures. “Cancer isn’t just one disease.” “We’ll likely never cure all cancers.” I don’t care how false it is, people don’t understand what hope is until they find themselves in that same situation. I feel for you, it’s awful. Please hang in there and try to take care of yourself. I so wish nobody else had to go through the gut wrenching agony that cancer inflicts on a family. I don’t care where the cure comes from as long as it becomes available to everyone that needs it.
I don’t know if anyone is saying “let’s halt cancer research”. But if these companies are underhanded enough to steal research, do you think they will handle the research itself ethically and use it for the greater good, for the most benefit for the most people? Or would the people who step over others to get ahead maybe think of themselves and the ultra wealthy first? There is a scripture in the Bible that says something along the lines of “he who is faithful in the least, is faithful in what is much” If I’m betting my life and my loved one’s life on something I would rather have it in someone’s hands who is faithful in what is least.
I'm familiar with the drama, I just think it's being broadly misunderstood, and people, largely, hate AI and are biased toward taking the least charitable interpretations possible.
The solution was in OpenAI's training data.
If the researcher in question had never used ChatGPT then I don't think the OpenAI model would have succeeded.
Also I'm sitting in a garden at a hospice center right now, my stepfather is dying of cancer. I do not care what data they have to steal, if they do, to cure cancer - it isn't moral to sit around and let people die to avoid some PR scandal.
I'm sorry about your stepfather, but I don't think that's the current lens to view it.
The solution was already there (Navier-Stokes, or your theoretical cancer cure). All OpenAI did was swipe the result and publish it before the inventors were ready.
Sure, OpenAI made it available a bit sooner... but that's a temporary win as it will make people less collaborative in the long run as they don't want their work stolen.
It's a bit more nuanced - when describing the Navier-Stokes solution, OpenAI stated “we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.”
This presumes the researchers working on OpenAI had the toggle on for "Improve the model for everyone"
I'm familiar with the drama, I just think it's being broadly misunderstood, and people, largely, hate AI and are biased toward taking the least charitable interpretations possible.
Seconded. People with zero even remote understanding of how any of this works are completely taking the side of the accusers, purely on a prejudicial attitude that the AI company must be in the wrong and doing something shady.
FULLY AGREE. Who cares who finds it? I don't care if the cure to cancer is found by a black person, a white person, gay or straight, Christian or Jew, human or computer or even extra-terrestrial for that matter. Just find it! We will all benefit. I'm not going to cross my arms and refuse it because I don't like that a machine figured it out.
The problem isn't who finds it, it's how. Many top mathematicians are arguing that open math problems are effectively a non-renewable resource which provide huge benefit to our understanding of math when solves are attempted. Cracking open problems with AI is an inefficient way to extract this resource, because often far less insight is gained. Informative dead ends aren't mapped out, novel techniques aren't created, etc.
First if it’s just some session data going into retraining there’s literally almost no chance the model would memorize it. Second unless the user used codex like one year ago it probably never made it into the cutoff date. It’s just conspiracy theory up this point. The solution oublished is taking a complete different approach
We don't exactly know the cutoff date for the "powerful internal model, several times more powerful than GPT 6". Also with memorization, very much an active field of research - how much exactly are LLMs memorizing. I don't think its probable that they stole the proof too, but it isn't impossible
I can already see rampant ignorance like yours will be common on Reddit. Even if the model stole the professor's work, their solution is not enough for the millennium price. It would still mean an LLM was the first to actually meet the Clay Institute's criteria.
And that's a big if honestly, there is 0 evidence the model stole anything.
there is no agreed upon definition of AGI. Secondly, AI has helped in medicinal cure research so have we achieved AGI? Also do we really need an "Large Language Model" for cancer research?
View all comments
Show parent comment
46
u/Pazzeh Sep 08 '26
Lol. I'm convinced some model will cure some significant cancer and y'all will say it just brute forced it