The difference is no one writes punchcards so the comparison is inapt. It is more like supposing AI eats everything humans attempt to do. They will take your work as you are working on it, any interaction at all. It is meta-plagiarism, on another level.

▲

johnsmith1840 2 hours ago | parent [-]

AI didn't "take" anything. An openai researcher did?

The solution is also different to theirs? Literally no evidence of plagarism?

▲

opello an hour ago | parent [-]

No evidence until there's an answer to the question of if prompt data from the other researchers was used to train the internal model.

I think the reasonable ethical question to consider when a company has an incentive to prove its value, and learns of the state of the art of a flashy research topic being close to a solution, and then throws loads of resources at trying to solve it first. I agree that "AI" didn't "take" but it's not an incomprehensible shortcut of criticism of the aforementioned behavior, not that precision should be avoided here.

▲

johnsmith1840 an hour ago | parent [-]

Ok so if no plagarism has occured here in any sense then there's no discussion here?

I agree though if they did plagarism it's really really bad for OpenAI. They would instantly have evaporated all remaining good will to gloat over a stolen discovery.

▲

opello 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think there's still an ethical question of a business trying to scoop a researcher solely because the business learned of promising progress. It's not a very big leap to consider "multiple discovery" (a la calculus by Leibniz and Newton) and chance that the model that is good at math proofs might have enough ambient context to work faster from a similar knowledge base on the problem for which promising progress was discovered. I think that's not nice at the very least. Surely the above-board way to approach that is "hey researcher, we learned, indirectly, that you might have made significant progress on flashy research topic and would like the chance to throw our vast computational resources in to try to help work toward the conclusion of that effort." But, maybe that's asking too much?

	▲	johnsmith1840 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's a reasonable take. I think there's an important part which is that the nature of the beast implies there's effectively zero way to do that. They have no idea what context, triggering this pathway, was from this guys reddit post 4 years ago. I also assume that if any AI lab could actually do that it'd be an instant pissing context over who gives who credit the mostest. "This software engineer wrote a sick sorting algorthm everyone now uses, thank you random dude for that training contribution" Maybe we will in the future, maybe we'll learn that the solution to this prize is from 3 peoples schizo rant on reddit a decade ago. Would be kinda sick actually.