We shouldn't forget that the only way this unpublished research is supposedly getting into the training data in the first place is because the researchers making the accusations were conversing with ChatGPT in the process of doing their own research on these problems.

But if they are saying this contaminated the model's training data with knowledge of their ideas, who's to say the model they were developing their research ideas with wasn't already contaminated through prior discussions with other researchers about the same topics?

So if contamination is proved, or cannot be disproved, and if these researchers want OpenAI to relinquish its claim to have solved these problems independently, then it would seem they also have to give up their claim to have solved them independently?

1. Tristan's research direction was known to only a handful of other academics. It might help if you can be more specific regarding the origin of the contamination.

2. If someone did come out and claim that their ideas were used without proper attribution in Tristan's work, then of course, that deserves consideration.

3. What you're suggesting seems purely hypothetical. At present, there is nobody claiming that Tristan's work is "contaminated"

4. Tristan was very willing in his initial statement to give credit to the people who developed the ideas.

This. I don't like people using others' work without giving proper credit. At the same time, people are jumping too quickly to defend these mathematicians without any solid evidence of their claims, while framing this as some sort of "Evil AI Company vs human mathematicians".

In the best case scenario, the mathematicians were standing on the shoulders of the extensive training data from sources that aren't being credited and they may not even have had access to.

I have nothing against these mathematicians because I don't know them. And given that, there's no reason to trust their word any more than OpenAI's.

It's possible the work they were doing, even if related, was a dead end and immaterial to OpenAI's findings. Or maybe they are right and OpenAI stole their work. Who knows the truth right now?

In other words, we need more evidence before making accusations.

So it’s Napster for ideas?