Occam's Razor says: "They heard this problem is solved or about to be solved amongst the rest of the other problems. They prioritized this and put substantial compute with their newest model and solved it." I know everyone loves juicy rumors, theories etc. but honestly that is the simplest and most plausible explanation given the state of AI improvement now. Obviously spending 15 million on a problem is not a slam dunk decision even for a company like OpenAI but if it has a significantly high chance of solving it and their competitor will be claiming they solved it, then it raises the stakes and they go after it. In fact this is the most rational and also curiosity-driven thing to do and totally what I would have expected from any frontier lab. Of course if one wants to prove their confirmation biases that they train on sessions or be able to identify individual users, the non-zero chance of that being also another explanation is attractive enough to wet their appetites.

Isn't it also a simple idea that a model designed to recall relevant information from its training data, which is also known to have been trained on data from user transcripts, would, in fact, reproduce directly relevant work by leading experts in the field? Seems like Occam's razor would apply to that situation as well.

We know that LLMs are trained to recall relevant info. We know AI vendors are using user transcripts to train models. Two plus two equals four, right? I mean, an LLM that failed to recall the transcripts of those researchers would be a bad model.

Funny how they did not solve any of the other problems, just the one where there was already solutions to the NS with some restrictions in their chats, and their solution seems to derive from those.

Given that the solution took a somewhat “unusual” approach, I find it even more unlikely that an AI model would have come up with this on its own.

Why is that simple or plausible? Why is simpler or more plausible than lifting an almost-finished solution from a researcher's account?

I agree with Occam.

That 100x step up from using 100 agents for Euler to 100_000 agents for Navier-Stokes, in a single day seems a bit sus.

I also think this is not ethical behavior. This is at least academic dishonesty, kind of a plagiarism or intellectual theft.

That’s why they wanted to credit Tristan and to give $1M award to him. But again, they acted unethically in that process as well. They wanted him to remove Levent (Anthropic affiliation) as co-author and threatened Tristan to “end his career”. Their behavior is actually telling, their work was not completely independent from Tristan&Levent’s unpublished work.

There's also an elephant here in this room: Quite "coincidental" one of the coauthors worked for the competition. Of course GPT would know this fact. And OAI has every incentive to particularly monitor those accounts.-

This is not the simplest explanation.

The most direct line from problem to proof is OpenAI building off of conversations the mathematicians had with their AI.

[dead]