upvote

points

by famouswaffles4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby PowerElectronix3 hours ago|
next
[-]
How else would you explain OpenAI suddendly assembling a team focused on working the same problem from the same angle than the researchers that just made a breakthrough?
reply
upvoteby famouswaffles2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What would be so hard to explain?

That OpenAI heard about the result and decided to throw a lot of money at it knowing it was within reach ?

That the model took an approach that was published years ago ?

reply
upvoteby calf2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result
reply
upvoteby tristanj35 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The rumors that Anthropic had solved a millennium problem were absolutely everywhere last week. I'm not surprised at all that OAI took their own stab at it.
reply
upvoteby famouswaffles1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
We are told in the statement that there were rumours already going around about a Stokes result (I even know about the rumors in question. It was all over twitter in the right spaces) and that Tristan contacts OpenAI about the rumors. In the message, it's pretty clear Tristan has made some result.

So either the rumors or Tristan's contact would explain it fine.

reply
upvoteby calf1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
One should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something.

The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so in fact this explanation confounds several things (in terms of the mutual knowledge of the conversants and their intentions).

Based on this lack of understanding it is pointless to continue this thread

reply
upvoteby tigershark3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
So are you baselessly assuming that he is lying? He explicitly reported that he was threatened and your answer here is to defend OpenAI no matter what.
reply
upvoteby famouswaffles3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Do you not have reading comprehension? Did you even read the statement? He himself asserts at the end he doesn't know if the above example is true or not. What on earth are you going on about? Where in my comment am I assuming he's lying ?
reply
upvoteby tigershark3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
From my post above: > He explicitly reported that *he was threatened* and your answer here is to defend OpenAI no matter what.

Yes, I read fully the statement, what about you? Do you know what is a threat? What is this in your super-humble opinion if not a threat:

> The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”

And you are saying that I don't have reading comprehension...

reply
upvoteby sk4rekr0w3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You really lack reading comprehension
reply
upvoteby tigershark3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
My reading comprehension is pretty good, I'm not the one that doesn't recognize a threat even when it's perfectly clear. Verbatim from the statement:

> The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”

reply