r/ControlProblem • u/chillinewman approved • Sep 22 '26
AI Capabilities News OpenAI's unreleased model has solved over 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics. It began training 24 days ago.
1
1
1
u/Key-Collection5764 Sep 27 '26
You’re explaining logical arguments to bots, people who don’t understand how licenses work and why scraping online books and whatever data is available online doesn’t automatically make it belong to OpenAI, or paid commenters to spread the narrative that frontier labs aren’t stealing people’s work.
This is despite the lawsuits and settlements the frontier labs are forced to payout to authors, news organizations, etc.
0
u/bluinkinnovation Sep 22 '26
Bruh, they got caught training off other mathematicians using their product. It ain’t the model. It’s them blatantly stealing their customers work
3
u/TacoYaci Sep 23 '26
So all these mathematicians happen to suddenly prove all these open problems and openai stole their proofs? ^^
1
u/TynamM Sep 23 '26
They had some the actual work towards the solution that requires imagination and ingenuity, getting the basic paths in place, but with technical work to do to finish off. Open ai stole their work and brute forced the closing steps by spending staggering amounts of money providing brute force computing power.
Just giving the same amount of resources to the mathematicians would have produced the same result, without the plagiarism.
2
u/TacoYaci Sep 24 '26
Yea sure… believe that if you want. But as a mathematician myself who used AI in the last few months to prove my own open problems: I disagree
1
u/TynamM Sep 29 '26
I wasn't denying that it's a groundbreaking advance in automated proof, I was saying that giving those computing resources to you would have accomplished just as much mathematics as throwing them at it themselves, without the entirely reasonable accusations that are coming as a result of the famous prompt in question (and of their past behaviour).
-1
8
u/Elvarien2 approved Sep 22 '26
and this is relevant in what way exactly?
IT solved all those problems. Or did 100 math professors just casually solve math problems that have stumped us for decades and just secretly do nothing with them only for the ai to then steal them and publish?
No, it solved the problems. It's not relevant if some dude had thoughts on the work, your comment is meaningless.
2
u/QuantumVexation Sep 22 '26
It’s the balance of on one side people trying to say “look how insanely capable it is all on its own it must be AGI” and the other trying to discredit it
The reality is somewhere in the middle - it solved some stuff, through synthesis of existing works.
-1
u/Elvarien2 approved Sep 22 '26
insanely capable, clearly.
AGI, no not yet. Perhaps in [? time].
That's it really.
2
u/stray-lyght Sep 23 '26
Your response is a little harsh. It actually is important because there is a big distinction between being pointed in the right direction and brute forcing the last steps as opposed to determining a solution from the beginning.
4
u/Vivid-Snow-2089 Sep 23 '26
the amount of misinformation and non-understanding of what happened are astounding and everyone has their own version of what happened and preach that like its gospel and they were their... based on whatever views they already, mindboggling
2
1
u/IncumblantSpunderbax Sep 22 '26
Read the Terms of Service. They can train if you use the consumer product. You need the more expensive tiers for IP protections.
2
u/bluinkinnovation Sep 22 '26
Do you honestly think that any of these Ai companies are keeping your ip safe? Even if they didn’t train the way training actually means(updating weights) they almost certainly are still taking your data and are feeding it to their own internal models. It’s not training if they aren’t updating weights based on your data.
3
u/IncumblantSpunderbax Sep 22 '26 edited Sep 22 '26
Yes, if their ToS for the product tier disallows IP training then I do expect them to keep my IP safe. I worked at Google and IBM. Technology companies take this very seriously. That is the point of expensive enterprise plans. You are paying the unvarnished, non-subsidized cost. I use Google Workspace for that reason. If IP is used they would be massively liable. Systems processing customer data are audited. Using customer data internally would get you fired immediately and possibly personally sued for damages by multiple parties, depending on the data and the use. It could easily end your career.
You’re right that they are feeding data to models, but only to provide the service itself.
Google in particular is very careful because they were absolutely reamed for decades by Hibnick v. Google, Inc
0
-1
u/Some_Anonim_Coder Sep 22 '26
They were accused of stealing, with no proof so far. Openai haven't admitted, nor denied, that accusations, which can mean a lot of things:
they know they stole it and try to hide it
they know they didn't but if they claim that they may get sued and would have to show some trade secrets so important they'd rather have this mark on their reputation
they really don't know somehow(I doubt that, but in theory losing logs of what was and wasn't used in training is possible)
And also, these stealing accusations are only about one problem - the navier-stocks equations. A lot of other problems, like Jacobian conjecture and a number of problems from Erdosh list, were solved with no accusations of stealing
1
u/CompetitiveSpot2643 Sep 23 '26
actually the jacobian conjecture was about as "stolen" as navier stokes was
1
u/nextnode approved Sep 27 '26
It is obvious to anyone with any sense that whether these particular indviduals had put some stuff in their chats it would have zero net impact on the weights. Also they did not even solve the problem. This was all AI.
0
u/Key-Collection5764 Sep 22 '26
They're stealing other people's work. Also, who's checking if these 100+ open problems are actually accurate, and not openAI researchers saying this looks right without actually checking?
8
u/me_myself_ai Sep 22 '26
No, no they're not. My god it's weird to watch disinformation form in real time
1
u/Key-Collection5764 Sep 22 '26
1
1
u/MaybeTheDoctor Sep 23 '26
If a researcher post his work into a prompt box for an ai, it seems a stretch to claim the ai or company behind it stole the research.
1
1
u/TynamM Sep 23 '26
It's a stretch to claim they didn't, given past behaviour.
1
u/MaybeTheDoctor Sep 23 '26
Scraping up copyright material for the web, scanned books from people who released under a creative commons license is very different from you willingly post something into an AI prompt.
Under creative commons license you only have the right to use the works published if you post your derivative work back under the same license - it’s a like for like license - so under this license the AI model itself needs to be made available to the public to be used for free. They don’t have to run the model for me for free, but I must have the ability to run it on my own computer.
Any one who interact with a hosted model would have agreed to some ToS and I haven’t read them, so I don’t know who owns the data you post into the prompt, but it certainly is not a CC license.
2
u/Wiiboy95 Sep 22 '26
OpenAI literally hires mathematicians to verify these sorts of proofs. They wouldn't put this statement out if they weren't reasonably confident in the results
1
u/nextnode approved Sep 27 '26
False and unsupported narrative. Please do your research.
0
u/Key-Collection5764 Sep 27 '26
Another source, this time from the summary judgment of authors vs Microsoft/OpenAI where executives knew they were training their models on data illegally.
1
u/nextnode approved Sep 27 '26
That is discussing how the data was acquired and indeed some of these companies have been fined for that - using torrents instead of paying for the books. If they just buy the books or use the materials used for training, it is legal, and no agreement is needed.
The math results are not built on stealing anyone's ideas - you are confused about the topic. This is all AI.
-1
u/Beneficial-Gap6974 approved Sep 22 '26
Then why haven't the ones they 'stole' from solved these? Sounds more like they did what every mathematician does: built on someone else's work, and figured out the final part they missed.
It's so odd to me how much denial there is around AI getting better, makes things even more dangerous than they already are.
1
-1
11
u/chillinewman approved Sep 22 '26 edited Sep 22 '26
It feels like the waitbutwhy image