"we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ."

What a landmine sentence to bury in this report, you can't rule out your models were spying on other researchers?

Everyone knows that they train on the discounted rate plans data. All the labs are upfront about this too.

If you need privacy, then you are going to have to pay full price for those tokens (API). This has been true since day one. Everyone knows it, I guess though this is the first time that it has become "real".

Is it spying? I think this usage is disclosed in their terms of service.

If they had agreed to let OpenAI train on their data, it wouldn’t be spying.

More like helped improve our work (the disproof)

Isn't this a proof that the usage data is truly "de-identified"? If OpenAI could prove that "their usage" influenced the finding, then it wouldn't be de-identified. (Also, it's a bit disingenuous to trim the "While unlikely," prefix.)

If those researchers did not opt out then training data might go in. I think it’s a courteous acknowledgement; as was reaching out and examining the direction of proofs themselves. At stake here is a particular mathematician dynamic - ego, prize money, and the sense of proprietary ownership that some might feel working on a problem.

All that was just kicked in the teeth by a group with a lot of compute that was like “bro I heard on twitter that Navier stokes could be solved. Let’s try it.” That’s an existential level of engagement that almost no mathematician in history would like.

I think OpenAI are correct that it's worth noting, but realistically any relevant usage data they have and used to improve their models would be very insignificant unless they were deliberately using logs from other researchers and training specifically on it (which they seem to deny).

The fact the proofs differ suggests that the models were not directed to be particularly focused on that avenue of research nor trained to converge in that direction.

I get the scepticism, but I feel some of the accusations here are bad faith.

What does it matter? They offered concurrent credit to the other team. I thought I saw sole credit elsewhere in the leaked DMs on Reddit too. This is plainly fair.