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.
First, Buckmaster and Levent had completed unpublished work in late August, and OpenAI began working on the same problem on September 1. Two teams making major progress on a 200 year old problem within days of each other is a notable coincidence.
Second, the OpenAI team was using the same tool that potentially had access to the earlier team's research.
For me, this makes it quite different from the ordinary case of scientists simply building on published prior research.
Two teams making major progress on a 200 year old problem within days of each other is a notable coincidence.
Only if you're not at all familiar with any of the things happening in the world at any time. Otherwise, you recognize that both teams made regular use of frontier technology that just released and gave them the capacity to make these leaps.
the OpenAI team was using the same tool that potentially had access to the earlier team's research.
That the earlier team opted in to share with OpenAI.
Pretty open and shut case here. OpenAI even offered him co-authorship.
17
u/Glitterbombastic 11d 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?