Yeah fair I concede that this is somewhat crucial information. The parent seems to write it in a tone that suggests deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc.

▲

esperent 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc

It's a marketing post from a huge company. Only the naive would view it uncritically without assuming it's been written carefully to present the results in the best possible light while skirting the boundaries of outright lying.

▲

dist-epoch 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The results speak for themselves.

Imagine 2 years from now: "yes, GPT solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but cmon, it's just a marketing stunt to hype their stuff, it was probably Terence Tao doing the work but he's so obsessed with hyping AI that he doesn't want to take credit"

▲

esperent 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nobody is claiming the results are false.

We're saying look critically at the claims for how it was done, that it only cost $2000, etc. it would be extremely easy to run 100 sessions that failed, each costing ~$2000, and then just publishing an article about the one that succeeded, for example.

This goes double since it's an internal secret model (Astra) so nobody else can verify the results.

	▲	simianwords an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Would this be your reaction if OpenAI also solved millennium problems? The point we are trying to make is that the significance of this news is much larger than the skepticism you are providing.