I mean, we have a Millenium problem that is most likely solved. Either by OpenAI on its own, OpenAI stealing another's work and finishing it or a researcher using AI to iterate more rapidly than a human alone could.
I mean, we have a Millenium problem that is most likely solved. Either by OpenAI on its own, OpenAI stealing another's work and finishing it or a researcher using AI to iterate more rapidly than a human alone could.
No. We should credit that work is being done that otherwise may not be. I'm not defending OpenAI. I'm defending AI in general, something both OpenAI and Buckmaster (and his co-author) used.
No, I did not. If someone says either X or Y happened, they didn't say X happened.
My exact statement: "Either by OpenAI on its own, OpenAI stealing another's work and finishing it or a researcher using AI to iterate more rapidly than a human alone could" [1]. (Either X, Y [a and b] or Z. An Oxford comma could have helped.)
At worst what OpenAI did was inconsiderate, but not referencing prior work is a minor academic sin. This is especially the case when AI is not playing the vanity game that seems to so inflame some mathematicians.
We could also acknowledge that everything that could justifiably be considered stealing is not necessarily covered by current statute.
You seem to be a little sensitive about the subject. Which AI firm do you work for?
I don't work for any AI company.