• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Sebastien Bubeck calls allegations against him “false and inflammatory”

    Alongside Bubeck’s denial, another post asks whether labs can see others’ work and scoop them when the stakes are “high enough.”

    SZ
    JA
    EM
    16 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    On September 8, Sebastien Bubeck said allegations circulating about him were “false and inflammatory.” He said he had entered the discussion following academic norms and would say more on September 9. A separate post argued that the personal drama was distracting from a more interesting, unanswered question: can labs see others’ work and scoop them when the stakes are “high enough”?

    Combined views

    8.8M

    16 Sources, first seen 23d ago

    Combined views

    8.8M

    16 Sources, first seen 23d ago

    100.3K likes
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    23d ago
    first seen 23d ago
    100.3K likes
    896 comments
    18.5K saves
    12.2K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    896 comments
    18.5K saves
    12.2K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    16 Sources

    @etale27If I am reading this correctly, Tristan Buckmaster is alleging OAI has a resolution of Navier-Stokes(via Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa’s program) which maybe used info from Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge’s private Codex sessions What the fuck is happening!!!
    @kyanyang_this is insane. Levent and Tristan make major independent progress towards Navier–Stokes, with help from Claude and Codex. word reaches OpenAI. days later, OpenAI claims internal NS results, coincidentally using the same novel methods as Levent and Tristan. Tristan asks if OpenAI trained on their private Codex sessions. he never gets an answer. then OpenAI pressures Tristan to publish without Levent because Levent works at Anthropic. when Tristan refuses, he says OpenAI threatens his career.
    @HesamationThis is the WEIRDEST thing you will hear for a while about the OpenAI x Anthropic feud: > be Tristan Buckmaster > NYU mathematician > spend a month with coauthor + AI to prove a major Euler blowup result > start hearing rumors online that Anthropic has solved a major open math problem > realize the rumor may be connected to our work > find out that our project has reached OpenAI > contact OpenAI to see what’s going on > a few days later they me their model has a 100 page Navier–Stokes proof > asks me to publish it > CATCH: drop my coauthor because he works at Anthropic > refuse > OpenAI: “why would you ruin your career?”
    @suchenzangpersonal drama / threats of destroying career might be false? will know tmrw ig full inflammatory statement: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf response:
    @JsevillamolInsinuation #1a: OAI appropriated T&L's research direction before it was public. The strongest evidence for this is that OAI admitted they started their effort after learning about Tristan and Alpoge's, following a similar approach.
    @jachiam0Something that I am not sure if I fully understood from Tristan's account at first, and I would like to see some clarity on this point, is that he appears to be claiming that Seb did not want to put Levent's name on the OpenAI internal result that Levent did not contribute to; also that Seb was comfortable allowing Tristan to take (lead authorship!) credit for the OpenAI internal result. A few people appear to be claiming that the request was to drop Levent from Levent's work; that doesn't seem to be the claim Tristan made. Still reserving judgement until Seb gives his side tomorrow and possibly some back-and-forth happens that clarifies things further. But it looks much less inflammatory if one interprets that the authorship dispute was about who OpenAI would give their own internal result away to.
    @scaling01RT @etale27: If I am reading this correctly, Tristan Buckmaster is alleging OAI has a resolution of Navier-Stokes(via Córdoba and Martínez-…
    @EMostaque@jachiam0 The odd thing is.. I don' t think Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa’s program is non-obvious? It was a reasonable approach to point the tokens at if looking at conditions c and d if you are an LLM, straight analytical.
    @ns123abc>math professor spends a year on one of the hardest unsolved problems in math >"Navier-Stokes" >his drafts for the whole project went through codex sessions >openai had his logs in codex >suddenly rumor leaks AI solved it >he emails openai to ask what's going on >openai calls within days >"funny story, our model also solved it" >using his exact approach >asks openai: did you train on my sessions? >no answer
    @ziv_ravidI wonder if they have in the code somewhere: if (Millennium Prize Problem): Save data

    16 Sources

    @etale27If I am reading this correctly, Tristan Buckmaster is alleging OAI has a resolution of Navier-Stokes(via Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa’s program) which maybe used info from Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge’s private Codex sessions What the fuck is happening!!!
    @kyanyang_this is insane. Levent and Tristan make major independent progress towards Navier–Stokes, with help from Claude and Codex. word reaches OpenAI. days later, OpenAI claims internal NS results, coincidentally using the same novel methods as Levent and Tristan. Tristan asks if OpenAI trained on their private Codex sessions. he never gets an answer. then OpenAI pressures Tristan to publish without Levent because Levent works at Anthropic. when Tristan refuses, he says OpenAI threatens his career.
    @HesamationThis is the WEIRDEST thing you will hear for a while about the OpenAI x Anthropic feud: > be Tristan Buckmaster > NYU mathematician > spend a month with coauthor + AI to prove a major Euler blowup result > start hearing rumors online that Anthropic has solved a major open math problem > realize the rumor may be connected to our work > find out that our project has reached OpenAI > contact OpenAI to see what’s going on > a few days later they me their model has a 100 page Navier–Stokes proof > asks me to publish it > CATCH: drop my coauthor because he works at Anthropic > refuse > OpenAI: “why would you ruin your career?”
    @suchenzangpersonal drama / threats of destroying career might be false? will know tmrw ig full inflammatory statement: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf response:
    @JsevillamolInsinuation #1a: OAI appropriated T&L's research direction before it was public. The strongest evidence for this is that OAI admitted they started their effort after learning about Tristan and Alpoge's, following a similar approach.
    @jachiam0Something that I am not sure if I fully understood from Tristan's account at first, and I would like to see some clarity on this point, is that he appears to be claiming that Seb did not want to put Levent's name on the OpenAI internal result that Levent did not contribute to; also that Seb was comfortable allowing Tristan to take (lead authorship!) credit for the OpenAI internal result. A few people appear to be claiming that the request was to drop Levent from Levent's work; that doesn't seem to be the claim Tristan made. Still reserving judgement until Seb gives his side tomorrow and possibly some back-and-forth happens that clarifies things further. But it looks much less inflammatory if one interprets that the authorship dispute was about who OpenAI would give their own internal result away to.
    @scaling01RT @etale27: If I am reading this correctly, Tristan Buckmaster is alleging OAI has a resolution of Navier-Stokes(via Córdoba and Martínez-…
    @EMostaque@jachiam0 The odd thing is.. I don' t think Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa’s program is non-obvious? It was a reasonable approach to point the tokens at if looking at conditions c and d if you are an LLM, straight analytical.
    @ns123abc>math professor spends a year on one of the hardest unsolved problems in math >"Navier-Stokes" >his drafts for the whole project went through codex sessions >openai had his logs in codex >suddenly rumor leaks AI solved it >he emails openai to ask what's going on >openai calls within days >"funny story, our model also solved it" >using his exact approach >asks openai: did you train on my sessions? >no answer
    @ziv_ravidI wonder if they have in the code somewhere: if (Millennium Prize Problem): Save data