Extremely unfortunate that gate keeping got to the point where they felt the need to ask for permission to share math.

bravoetch 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In previous math sharing there was speculation about stealing human researcher's results or progress, via prompt inputs from those researchers, and sharing that as their own result. They're adjusting their process, and it seems ok.

	▲	whimsicalism 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Let’s be very clear, the alleged “stolen results” were largely the product of another LLM, not de novo human work. Also, it was false - they did not steal the results. No clue why I'm downvoted for this, HN struggles with truth-seeking on these topics.

▲

hgoel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

After how poorly OpenAI and Anthropic handled the previous cases, I approve of the more measured and cautious approach this time.

We cannot have them rushing to publish amidst tons of confusion, rumors of threats/scooping and outright plagiarism of existing work (by failing to cite said work).

If they're going to participate as scientists in these more rigorous fields, they're going to have to match that level of rigor, not lower it to the disastrous low that ML research publication is at.

▲

make3 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It was OpenAI that fucked up the Navier Stokes explosion situation, not Anthropic

	▲	hgoel an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not referring to just that. For example, Anthropic published a half done report about some biology research that turned out to have already been discovered and patented, and IIRC both companies are guilty of claiming results without doing the basic diligence of citing the material their work builds on, effectively passing it off as entirely done by their AIs.

▲

xpct 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just to be very clear: they aren't asking for permission, they are framing it that way because of the bad press.

There's no gatekeeping here!

▲

reasonableklout 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's generally a good thing that OpenAI is noticing when their projects are harming human communities, and deciding to respect their norms, especially when their math discoveries do not have immediate application and build on the thousands of years of that community's work.

▲

schleck8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> do not have immediate application

How do you know? Seems statistically unlikely with 720 problems, most of them well known

	▲	reasonableklout 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't! But there is no such qualifier in the announcement. Perhaps OpenAI ought to filter for the problems that have immediate applications, and leave those that are unclear for humans.

▲

skeledrew 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> harming human communities

Said communities are doing that all on their own by caring about what AI is doing rather than just focusing on their own thing as they did before AI. It's a serious kind of envy IMO.