paxys

Well yeah, they’ve literally been (illegally) ordered to do this.

Ads follow eyeballs. If people are spending time on ChatGPT then why won’t advertisers pay for ads over there?

It’s time to stop complaining about “shitty code” written by AI. If there are problems in functionality sure, but I personally don’t care about a good directory structure or short, single-purpose functions or short files or whatever else we have been taught about good engineering practices. Why? Because if the code was generated by AI then it will be maintained by AI. I’m not reading it, and I don’t care about it.

No, they said they don't use android so don't know the native UX. You can test your app on the platform and confirm that the functionality all works, but how well it adheres to the platform's design language is subjective and hard to say if you aren't used to the platform.

> Nobody wants this.

Sure, but a billion people presumably do want to keep using ChatGPT for free.

Messages are tailored for the audience. The "AI will replace all jobs" narrative is used to sell AI to business leaders.

And the “makes sense or not” part can change based on a bunch of factors.

It’s actually pretty common for a new company to start fully native (only iOS, few features, limited scope), then switch ro react native/electron (need to support more surfaces, features are being developed too quickly), then back to fully native (can afford individual dev teams for each platform).

Have tens of millions of engaged fans or just tens? Difficult choice.

It’s also hard to be the CEO of a multi-trillion dollar company. Speaking is part of the job.

Apple needs to bring back live keynotes instead of this overproduced TV show.

Just once I want the CEO to go up on stage and say “this year’s model isn’t all that great tbh”.

Willing to bet if an AI next cures a cancer people here will go “that wasn’t the most dangerous type of cancer so it is meaningless”.

Yeah solving a Millennium Problem is totally equivalent to calculating another digit of pi.

If I work at Anthropic and say there’s a 0% chance AI could kill all humans is BBC going to publish that as well? After all I am an “Anthropic researcher”, and my views should hold the same weight as this one.

Or are only the most sensationalist ones worth amplifying?

> Navier-Stokes is one of six “Millennium Problems” on a list compiled by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000.

Seven, not six. One is solved already, but is still a millennium problem.

They are not “private research notes” if they are generated by an LLM.

If you want a level headed technical discussion instead of pitchforks and drama you have come to the wrong forum.

No one wants to “steal” your vibe coded crap. Your prompts aren’t as unique or valuable as you think.

Oh please. This whole “I’m not accusing them of anything, but this sure seems suspicious” doesn’t work past the 6th grade. He knew exactly what he was doing.

The kind of humans who invent entire fields of science on their own come by a few times a generation. It’s fine to say AI isn’t anywhere as close to them in intelligence, but instead is comparable to the “average” mathematician who is building on the work done by others and taking it a bit further.

1. using copyrighted material to train LLMs is fair use, not theft

2. The topic we are dissussing concerns LLMs being trained on logs from previous LLM chats. If you're prompting a model and it spits out some unique mathematical insight, you do not have copyright on that.

What theft? LLM output has never been copyrightable.

Yes… “future”… I have really bad news for you regarding all your personal data stored on Google’s servers.

Here’s a broader question – how many other academics contributed to Buckmaster’s result, by way of sharing the logs of their own (failed?) attempts into OpenAI’s training data set? How should he and OpenAI go about crediting all of them?

There are probably thousands of serious academics taking a crack at millennium problems using AI every day. All those attempts are in the training data. And in fact the two researchers benefited from those attempts as well.

What else can they declare really? Yeah the model has training data from previous attempts. Alpöge and Buckmaster also similarly benefited from attempts before theirs.

Keep this kind of clickbait on Reddit please

Bundling in codex isn’t going to increase the download count on their website. Unless you’re assuming that every codex install downloads a fresh non-cached copy.

Why is that the story? Is there anything to back it up beyond a single accusation?

Doesn’t matter. People’s minds are already made up, and facts aren’t getting in the way.