Everyone?? No, most definitely OpenAI.

But they have learnt their lesson, next time they won't reach out to who they stole it from, they will publish first.

Seems like OpenAI did a boring normal corporate thing (find out your competitor made a breakthrough, try to replicate it) and then when the other mathematicians found out OpenAI had beat them to Navier-Stokes, they decided to lie about what happened because they were upset they didn't get to make the big breakthrough themselves.

▲

angry_octet a day ago | parent [-]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it isn't supported by the information already available.

▲

jdm2212 a day ago | parent [-]

The available information is essentially that story.

OpenAI's account: they heard a rumor that a Millennium Prize problem had been solved, so they tried to do it themselves and succeeded. Then they contacted the other researchers and were surprised to discover those guys hadn't actually cracked it, but offered the one of them who's not an Anthropic employee a co-authorship anyway. The conversations got testy.

Buckmaster's account: totally unsubstantiated accusations of plagiarizing from chat logs and plainly false accusations of OpenAI trying to get Alpoge removed as coauthor of a thing he was not an author of in the first place, and threats to ruin people's careers.

I think the synthesis is basically that Buckmaster and Alpoge had not quite solved the Navier-Stokes problem yet but thought they were really close, and had told friends as much, which is how the rumors got out. Now they're mad they got scooped. They aren't getting the money and recognition they thought they had locked down, and are engaging in a smear campaign.

▲

angry_octet 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think your reading is correct. ML history is related with examples of models using hints from side channels.

If it would be possible to replicate OpenAIs success with a model cut-off earlier than the rumours, and without hinting from informed mathematicians, then we can consider it original. Otherwise it's indefensible.

	▲	jdm2212 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		By Buckmaster's own account, OpenAI (a) wanted him and Alpoge to publish their Euler result first and (b) wanted Buckmaster to author the Navier-Stokes paper, and (c) when he refused both of those, tried to get Alpoge to talk him into it. Why would OpenAI go burn another $20 million trying to prove they didn't accidentally train on synthetic data derived from Buckmaster's codex sessions? They're desperately trying to give him credit anyway!