"I was shown a prompt and told the internal research model had simply been given the problem statement. Levent had been told by Sebastien “very little human input” had been used. This turned out not to be true. Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a number of things that was tried, that work had started on the unforced problem, that the team first set the model on easier problems, including Euler, that even the prompt that had been shown to me had been written by prompting Codex, and that an insane amount of compute had been used."

- This, from Tristan Buckmaster's writeup yesterday, indicates to me that there was more than incidental inspiration from Alpoge and Buckmaster.

> we did not read any private chats

Your post says “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models .” We can discuss what it means to “read” things but obviously the issue here isn't whether you did it manually or automatically.

But more importantly, what on earth are you doing threatening real scientists to remove their coauthors, then making fun of them on social media? Does the entire company run on that toxic culture, or did those people run off of some kind of outrageous tangent?

My employer would be rightfully outraged if I commented publicly on a sensitive, nuanced, and controversial issue like this based on my second-hand understanding of the matter.

> (the goal here was not to scoop any particular individuals and we were looking at many problems beyond these)

That is your opinion, but the optics of that should raise for you some flags. OAI could have waited (how long is a task left to the ethics committee) to see how the rumors panned out. Right now the optics look a lot like "we don´t care there is a 1/7 chance we one-up a human researcher by reacting to this rumor immediately, might makes right"

>we did not read any private chats

The question I am interested in is not "did we read private chats", but "was this new model trained using any of Tristan and Levent's chats, regardless of whether they were marked private". Can you comment on that?

If the goal was not to scoop them, why did openai put a massive team on this, working weekends, only after they heard rumors of the solution?

My OpenAI account was deactivated on Sunday due to a claimed infraction of production of child materials, maybe based on a few words in a technical chat that clearly isn't about that. Can you take a look? [email protected] - I was doing a lot of important work and projects and sharing much of my work with OpenAI. I also am a big proponent of funding Social Security Trust Funds (OASI & DI Solvency) so reactivating my account would let me do that as well. Thank you for taking a look.

You’re straddling a weird line here where I am not sure if you are speaking on behalf of OpenAI or not.

Some millennium problems? Are there more coming?

The fact that you're even here commenting on this is... a choice

How are people talking about this there? Why are so many employees posting nasty things about Tristan on twitter?

Your coworkers, after they learned about major progress in this problem, asked a model which was trained on the year of private work (the blog post even acknowledges this). No wonder it found the proof in less than a week using significantly higher compute resources. And if Tristan's accusations are true, that was absolutely intentional on the part of OpenAI. You are an evil company with evil people.

Its funny, it is uniquely with this one act that I have turned forever on OpenAI, which I hitherto defended up and down against nonsense charges.

I dedicate my life to its complete destruction beginning today.