OpenAI

We have a year to fix security everywhere

Astroturfing for Anthropic or OpenAI IPO?

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

Your comment was greyed out when I saw it earlier, maybe you missed some downvotes? About the plagiarism issue, I model it as OpenAI being an advisor and their AI a PhD student. If the advisor puts their name on a paper behind that of their PhD and it turns out the PhD copied the text of the paper from somewhere else the advisor is also responsible of plagiarism, not just the student. The least the advisor can do is withdraw their authorship from the paper. But, yeah, point well made: it could be much worse than that. Like an advisor instructing a student to copy someone else's paper.

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

Some of the involved people are dramatically naive if they believe they can simultaneously hide themselves from OpenAI while sending their arguments to a cloud service owned by OpenAI. While I support their argument - push for stronger data and privacy protections from OpenAI and similar - it is naive to believe we can have privacy while sending our data to third parties. It's clearly better to be safe than to be sorry here. Well, clearly better in terms of privacy. In terms of the maths gold rush, who can say what's better, that probably favours those taking more risk.

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

He claims to have found a counterexample for NS (see the second paragraph of the article), but the paper is not ready yet. OpenAI claims to already have a full proof (which they produced in the past 5 days after the rumors leaked). Hence the dispute. What I find interesting is the timeline of when he found counterexample for NS is very unclear. Did Tristan find a counterexample weeks ago or was it very recently? The wording is intentionally vague. Either way, there was a massive rush to publish these results.

Understanding Computer Memory Architecture and SSD Internals

Pangram is wrong. The text does not have any of the superfluous words typical for Claude/OpenAI talk. It is written like an answer to "Explain to me like I am 5", but it contains appropriate information for such a context. Only towards the end of the article, there are some signs that indicate AI editing, like a too frequent use of the word "simply", e.g.: > "The one-clock-cycle delay introduced by an RDIMM is not simply a penalty. It results from pipelining the memory interface. " This would have been better just: "The one-clock-cycle delay introduced by an RDIMM results from pipelining the memory interface." Overall, it seems that the AI contribution was minimal. The problem is that for scientific/technical texts it will always be impossible to determine whether they are wr…