> leaving aside the idea that OA might've used data from the researchers Codex sessions

Why leave that aside? That is _the_ story.

If a Chinese research lab did this we'd call it espionage.

But there's a bunch of people already in this thread calling that stuff unfounded speculation (which I disagree with), and my point is that even if that specific thing isn't true, OA's behavior here is obviously awful.

If they're going to try to beat researchers to discoveries like this it disincentives researchers to talk about their progress publicly, and basically breaks the ecosystem of scientific cooperation / discovery. It's also immoral.

▲

modeless an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Because they didn't do that. Tristan doesn't specifically claim that they did, and Anthropic employees don't think they did either. https://x.com/_sholtodouglas/status/2097218240397410733

	▲	FiberBundle 34 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well, of course Anthropic employees would say that, since they likely do the same. Claiming that your primary competitor doesn't engage in a certain malicious practice is supposed to make it look as if there's no way you would too. If somebody even says that about their competitor, then surely there must be truth to that, otherwise you would never give credit to someone you're opposed to.
	▲	Semkas an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		By default OA trains their models on codex-sessions. If I understand him correctly this is something Tristan explicitly mentions in his post as a possible reason for the fast results obtained by the internal OA team. Anthropic obviously doesn't want to challenge the idea that training is transformative, even if it means agreeing with their competitor.