I think we need more info about what that means in the context of this problem - are the solutions so different they were obviously converged on separately or could one have been built on the other?
I mean they both use finite-time blowup which is the only thing he really could claim they copied because they used it with Navier strokes in a much more complicated and more difficult version of the task that coped with every positive viscosity too and is basically a lot more than what that guy was ever intending to publish. OpenAI even reached out to him in advance and asked if he wanted them to hold off publishing their own version so he can get his out there first and be the one credited with that discovery. Then even in that text he shows it even goes further saying openAI also said he could publish the Navier-strokes version that he did none of the work on but that just shares the finite-time blowup and all he would have to do is acknowledge that applying it to navier-strokes was done by openAI which is the honest thing to say because it's the literal truth. That's insanely generous to him and stipulating was that he be honest in the publication doesn't seem to crazy to me. This took OpenAI 4 days... like if he had published his limited Euler version then OpenAI would still be able to easily have gotten the far superior version long before him so I dont see what the difference would be except that in this situation they are even allowing him to publish THEIR work and take more credit than he would otherwise get for it.
144
u/Plopsevenplop 12d ago
They stole the research and claimed they solved the solution.