Why in the world is that fishy?

Isn't that exactly what almost everyone would do given that they wanted to see how capable their model is and the tense competition they have with Anthropic right now? Stealing impressive headlines from your competitor is pure gold.

▲

piker an hour ago | parent [-]

If they were willing to spend 105 million it, perhaps. But that would be surprising. It’s fishy because they spent something like 15 million on the right one.

▲

aswegs8 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Again, that is the point. There is rumours that this one thing would be solvable, so they focus on this, spending 15m on one specific thing, instead of 105m on many. How is that fishy?

	▲	piker 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I understood the rumors (as described by OpenAI) to be that “one of” the prizes was solvable. If they heard NS specifically was solvable and aren’t saying that, they’re intentionally obfuscating that.

▲

pietz 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Because that’s the one Anthropic was rumored to have solved.

▲

piker 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

"On Tuesday, September 1, we heard rumors that two Millennium Prize problems had been resolved. Inspired by these rumors and by the step change in performance of our internal model, we launched an effort to evaluate it on all open Millennium Prize problems and a few other high-impact problems."

▲

pietz 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

That doesn't reject my claim. They just didn't name them in this post. It feels like, you're going through great lengths reading something into this.

	▲	piker 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, sorry I was reading it correctly but they addressed the issue in the post itself. They make it clear they were aiming at all 7 problems looking for the "two" that were rumored to be solved. But they didn't go hog on NS until they made progress. See sibling comments. I misread it the first time to be a claim that they "heard one of 7 human intractable problems are solved and spent 15 million on the right one".