The corporate espionage ring targeting Apple also isn't a good look. A company that does that is a company that will lie to you about harvesting internal materials from your company.
Can confirm, I had never heard of Navier-Stokes before this fiasco. And while I suspect OpenAI decided it was worth the risk for the public display of capability, this proves they are now directly competing against their own customers.
They've been dishing out cheap access specifically to researchers give over lmao. The researcher's got lured in - they need to accept they got played TBH.
Altman is certainly more devious than Amodei - he's shown that time and time again.
PG was right about he said about him.
Every entity on earth should see it as a kill shot: be careful what you put in the models. None of your information is safe.
Altman miscalculated badly. OpenAI took what could have been amazing publicity, and in a rush to publish, gave reason for users to distrust their core product.
How about the fact that it almost certainly did not happen?
I read today that OpenAI after investigation was able to categorically rule out that usage data from before beginning of July could have affected the system that was used.
Answering here because it does not let me reply to your second comment.
but you said and I quote here verbatim:
>"When you leave the relevant 'Help improve the model' toggle on, everyone working at the labs says it isn't used in the way you imagine"
I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on, as a matter of fact you can find multiple posts by people from here describing the same behaviour both with OpenAI and Anthropic.
>"The data wasn't used, it just does not line up with the time frame."
Except it does it lines very much so to the point is unbelievable to call this a coincidence,
specially
since OpenAI approached "New York University professor Tristan Buckmaster publicly accused OpenAI of trying to steal credit and pressure him into dropping his research partner." If he was lying about this he could be sued for a lot of money, this just makes it clear they got the solution probably form their research (or where well close enough) and did not want anthropic to have the credit.
>"You can believe whatever you want, but it's simply nonsense, and I find it wild how you all talk as if OpenAI just stole the work."
These people were caught red handed stealing form hundreds of authors and from APPLE they did not care about stealing from one of the biggest companies in the PLANET, do you think they care about stealing from Mathematicians ?
>"According to the latest reports, OpenAI has already made significant progress on further Millenium problems, and perhaps more results will soon follow. Maybe that can convince you that the model has the capability to solve these problems without a need for stealing work from chat inputs."
They would have cleared their name already if they could, if they could they would but there is excessive evidence Altman and the company itself are not decent people.
>I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on
Thank you for pointing that out. I just checked, and mine was on, too. Annoyingly, the toggle even stalls a bit, so I hit it twice when the first time didn't seem to work, and it quickly toggled off and then on again.
The data wasn't used, it just does not line up with the time frame.
And for the usage data they do use, when you leave the relevant 'Help improve the model' toggle on, everyone working at the labs says it isn't used in the way you imagine.
You can believe whatever you want, but it's simply nonsense, and I find it wild how you all talk as if OpenAI just stole the work.
According to the latest reports, OpenAI has already made significant progress on another Millenium problem, and perhaps more results will soon follow. Maybe that can convince you that the model has the capability to solve these problems without a need for stealing work from chat inputs.
>"When you leave the relevant 'Help improve the model' toggle on, everyone working at the labs says it isn't used in the way you imagine"
I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on, as a matter of fact you can find multiple posts by people from here describing the same behaviour both with OpenAI and Anthropic.
>"The data wasn't used, it just does not line up with the time frame."
Except it does it lines very much so to the point is unbelievable to call this a coincidence,
specially
since OpenAI approached "New York University professor Tristan Buckmaster publicly accused OpenAI of trying to steal credit and pressure him into dropping his research partner." If he was lying about this he could be sued for a lot of money, this just makes it clear they got the solution probably form their research (or where well close enough) and did not want anthropic to have the credit.
>"You can believe whatever you want, but it's simply nonsense, and I find it wild how you all talk as if OpenAI just stole the work."
These people were caught red handed stealing form hundreds of authors and from APPLE they did not care about stealing from one of the biggest companies in the PLANET, do you think they care about stealing from Mathematicians ?
>"According to the latest reports, OpenAI has already made significant progress on further Millenium problems, and perhaps more results will soon follow. Maybe that can convince you that the model has the capability to solve these problems without a need for stealing work from chat inputs."
They would have cleared their name already if they could, if they could they would but there is excessive evidence Altman and the company itself are not decent people.
This. These platforms are asking to be trusted with unprecedented amounts of the public's data and, unprecedentedly itself, the public's reasoning and decision-making. It's an awesome responsibility that requires a singular approach that smaller platforms with less responsibility don't necessarily have to devote resources to. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Facebook, they're the big dogs. They can't do the things the small guys can get away with. They're the 18-wheelers, and when you're an 18-wheeler, you HAVE to act differently. You stay in the middle lane, you do not speed, you always yield, because when you make a mistake, when you drive aggressively, you can kill dozens and blow up and interstate and stop traffic for hours, if not days. You don't get to do shit like this; the cost of everyone giving you their data is that you give up every opportunity to use it for your own interests, even though you technically have the capability to exploit it.
Nice analogy! This seems to me the main difference between Google and the other companies you list -- In regards to LLMs Google is the only one mostly acting like an mature, established organization and not rushing to market as soon as possible. For their responsibility they often get labelled as having fumbled some imagined race. Maybe they actually do just lack the talent to make better models but it's not like they aren't making advances in other areas of AI.
It already has. Inside just about every company on the planet are conversations this week revisiting the idea of giving these labs access to ANY data, further ramping up commentary on why don’t we just use open models on our own infra where we don’t have to “trust” anyone.
This PR stunt by OpenAI may go down in history as the thing that finally broke them for good.
The corporate espionage ring targeting Apple also isn't a good look. A company that does that is a company that will lie to you about harvesting internal materials from your company.
So no worse than hiring the big 4?
Can confirm, I had never heard of Navier-Stokes before this fiasco. And while I suspect OpenAI decided it was worth the risk for the public display of capability, this proves they are now directly competing against their own customers.
[dead]
Was it?
They've been dishing out cheap access specifically to researchers give over lmao. The researcher's got lured in - they need to accept they got played TBH.
Altman is certainly more devious than Amodei - he's shown that time and time again.
PG was right about he said about him.
Every entity on earth should see it as a kill shot: be careful what you put in the models. None of your information is safe.
Altman miscalculated badly. OpenAI took what could have been amazing publicity, and in a rush to publish, gave reason for users to distrust their core product.
It's like they're allergic to slowing down.
i'm not sure why there's a need for comparison here. both are not saints and you shouldn't trust any of them anyway
Eventually calculating shrewdness becomes its own trap.
How about the fact that it almost certainly did not happen?
I read today that OpenAI after investigation was able to categorically rule out that usage data from before beginning of July could have affected the system that was used.
Answering here because it does not let me reply to your second comment.
but you said and I quote here verbatim:
>"When you leave the relevant 'Help improve the model' toggle on, everyone working at the labs says it isn't used in the way you imagine"
I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on, as a matter of fact you can find multiple posts by people from here describing the same behaviour both with OpenAI and Anthropic.
>"The data wasn't used, it just does not line up with the time frame."
Except it does it lines very much so to the point is unbelievable to call this a coincidence,
specially
since OpenAI approached "New York University professor Tristan Buckmaster publicly accused OpenAI of trying to steal credit and pressure him into dropping his research partner." If he was lying about this he could be sued for a lot of money, this just makes it clear they got the solution probably form their research (or where well close enough) and did not want anthropic to have the credit.
>"You can believe whatever you want, but it's simply nonsense, and I find it wild how you all talk as if OpenAI just stole the work."
These people were caught red handed stealing form hundreds of authors and from APPLE they did not care about stealing from one of the biggest companies in the PLANET, do you think they care about stealing from Mathematicians ?
>"According to the latest reports, OpenAI has already made significant progress on further Millenium problems, and perhaps more results will soon follow. Maybe that can convince you that the model has the capability to solve these problems without a need for stealing work from chat inputs."
They would have cleared their name already if they could, if they could they would but there is excessive evidence Altman and the company itself are not decent people.
>I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on
Thank you for pointing that out. I just checked, and mine was on, too. Annoyingly, the toggle even stalls a bit, so I hit it twice when the first time didn't seem to work, and it quickly toggled off and then on again.
I hate it here.
See my post earlier today:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49643556
Well, it takes a lot of faith to give that "almost certain" levels of credence.
What do you think about the results of people investigating themselves for wrongdoing as a general matter?
The data wasn't used, it just does not line up with the time frame.
And for the usage data they do use, when you leave the relevant 'Help improve the model' toggle on, everyone working at the labs says it isn't used in the way you imagine.
You can believe whatever you want, but it's simply nonsense, and I find it wild how you all talk as if OpenAI just stole the work.
According to the latest reports, OpenAI has already made significant progress on another Millenium problem, and perhaps more results will soon follow. Maybe that can convince you that the model has the capability to solve these problems without a need for stealing work from chat inputs.
Oh it looks like I can finally reply here.
>"When you leave the relevant 'Help improve the model' toggle on, everyone working at the labs says it isn't used in the way you imagine"
I have personally deactivated that toggle on multiple occasions and for some reason it keeps getting toggled on, as a matter of fact you can find multiple posts by people from here describing the same behaviour both with OpenAI and Anthropic.
>"The data wasn't used, it just does not line up with the time frame."
Except it does it lines very much so to the point is unbelievable to call this a coincidence,
specially
since OpenAI approached "New York University professor Tristan Buckmaster publicly accused OpenAI of trying to steal credit and pressure him into dropping his research partner." If he was lying about this he could be sued for a lot of money, this just makes it clear they got the solution probably form their research (or where well close enough) and did not want anthropic to have the credit.
>"You can believe whatever you want, but it's simply nonsense, and I find it wild how you all talk as if OpenAI just stole the work."
These people were caught red handed stealing form hundreds of authors and from APPLE they did not care about stealing from one of the biggest companies in the PLANET, do you think they care about stealing from Mathematicians ?
>"According to the latest reports, OpenAI has already made significant progress on further Millenium problems, and perhaps more results will soon follow. Maybe that can convince you that the model has the capability to solve these problems without a need for stealing work from chat inputs."
They would have cleared their name already if they could, if they could they would but there is excessive evidence Altman and the company itself are not decent people.
Agreed. Companies don’t like trade secrets and proprietary information potentially being laundered to their competitors…
This. These platforms are asking to be trusted with unprecedented amounts of the public's data and, unprecedentedly itself, the public's reasoning and decision-making. It's an awesome responsibility that requires a singular approach that smaller platforms with less responsibility don't necessarily have to devote resources to. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Facebook, they're the big dogs. They can't do the things the small guys can get away with. They're the 18-wheelers, and when you're an 18-wheeler, you HAVE to act differently. You stay in the middle lane, you do not speed, you always yield, because when you make a mistake, when you drive aggressively, you can kill dozens and blow up and interstate and stop traffic for hours, if not days. You don't get to do shit like this; the cost of everyone giving you their data is that you give up every opportunity to use it for your own interests, even though you technically have the capability to exploit it.
Nice analogy! This seems to me the main difference between Google and the other companies you list -- In regards to LLMs Google is the only one mostly acting like an mature, established organization and not rushing to market as soon as possible. For their responsibility they often get labelled as having fumbled some imagined race. Maybe they actually do just lack the talent to make better models but it's not like they aren't making advances in other areas of AI.
What a great analogy, can't believe I haven't heard it before
It already has. Inside just about every company on the planet are conversations this week revisiting the idea of giving these labs access to ANY data, further ramping up commentary on why don’t we just use open models on our own infra where we don’t have to “trust” anyone.
This PR stunt by OpenAI may go down in history as the thing that finally broke them for good.
> This PR stunt by OpenAI may go down in history as the thing that finally broke them for good.
~0% chance of this happening
Nah not 0%.
But firms will start paying attention and the likelihood is we will see revenue's stagnate (not growing as fast) in short order as a result of it.
When people start having to be careful over a lot of stuff, they'll decide not to use it in the first place.