Yes, that was the allegation last night.

I work at OpenAI, though not on the team that did this, and my understanding is:

- we decided to ask our model for Millenium problem solutions because of two reasons: (a) our new model was looking incredibly good and (b) we heard rumors that some Millenium problems had been solved and were curious if our models could solve them (the goal here was not to scoop any particular individuals and we were looking at many problems beyond these)

- we did not read any private chats (but of course the model was aware of prior research literature published to the internet)

- the proof generated by our model was very different from theirs and also goes far beyond the published literature

- we made an effort to jointly announce rather than immediately scoop (I understand Tristan was unhappy with the conversations; I know zero details here and I hope more is shared today)

Edit: Here's is Sebastian's take: https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310?s=2...

That is addressed in the article.

> https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

This really need to be a top-level story on HN..

I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer.

This whole episode is more horrific than "AI is eating math". We now have a clear and economically damaging (or at least career damaging) example of the "training on customer tokens" problem.

We can't ignore this problem any longer.

Did you actually read the article and the substance of the solution?

>our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced)

[flagged]