Because he works for Anthropic. Supposedly this project was not part of his official capacity as an employee of theirs.

However, if they had published first, it's hard to imagine Anthropic not taking the opportunity to claim "our employee solved this Millennium prize problem using our AI".

▲

dguest 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> [the Open AI rep] twice asserted that he wanted Levent removed from authorship, and said it would all be simple if only it were not the case that, and it was so annoying that, Levent works at Anthropic.

Later on the author claims that the OpenAI rep threatened to ruin his career if he didn't go along with them.

Worth noting that there were two versions of the problem:

- the proof in the equations with viscosity (which OpenAI claims to have solved), and

- the proof with no viscosity (which Tristian and Levent solved)

What is confusing is that if OpenAI can prove their independence from Levent and Tristian, they could take full credit for proving the viscous version of the problem. Offering to give one author credit for something they proved seems like a strange choice: if nothing else it seems obvious that it would drive a very deep wedge between the two authors of the non-viscous version.

see https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf#page=3

▲

rocqua 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It seems very hard for OpenAI to prove that independence. Since they seem unable to exclude the possibility that their model was trained on transcripts by the two mathematicians.

▲

dguest 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If that's true, either they both deserve credit or neither of them do. You don't just average 0 and 2 and decide that <n> = 1 person deserves credit.

	▲	zeroonetwothree an hour ago \| parent [-]
		And yet it happens constantly in the history of science

▲

Gabrys1 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah, I missed that part, thanks!