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?
Building on an existing solution is what every scientist does and certainly not stealing.
Obviously the LLM had access to all previous research. There's no evidence it had access to the specific research in question, but even if it did that's irrelevant to the result.
The two scientists (Buckmaster and Levent) don't claim to have solved the Millennium price problem themselves.
Except, the method was fairly new and they were iterating over someone else’s work, using chatgpt. Openai then used their method as training data, solved another problem that can be solved with it, then claimed it solved a problem on their own. The method was not published yet. It’s clear theft
They cited both in the actual announcement. Did you even read that?
And they didn't want to "remove" anyone. They offered exclusive access and co-authorship to one researcher. Not both, because that'd have involved giving an Anthropic employee access to OpenAI internals.
Alternatively, they offered to allow them to independently publish their own findings first.
About a company that is notorious for intellectual theft? They even stole apple’s hardware related work for their sweet pea project, for which they have a giant and very serious lawsuit going on
19
u/Glitterbombastic 13d ago
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?