Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellohello2 | Hacker News Reader

I don't believe people are denying that the model is impressive. The problem is that learning someone else is making progress on a topic using method X and then rushing to scoop them borders on academic misconduct. If, on top of this, their private conversations about X were used in the proof, I really don't see how its defensible...

View on HN

The rumor going around X was that Anthropic had solved a Millennium Prize problem weeks ago and was sitting on the solution, waiting to release it right before their IPO to maximize hype.

If I were at OpenAI, I'd naturally want to snipe that from them. I am completely unsurprised they formed a crack team to steal Anthropic's glory, and do so in just five days.

Between companies, direct malevolent competition is OK. Between academics, there are other rules to the game. When you go into a boxing match, you agree to get punched in the face.

All this to say, trust is important, and grounded in social convention. So I do agree with you, but also disagree.

Whenever this is OK or not really depends on how the breakthrough is contextualized, and how there people at play, here, agree to contextualize it.

In my view, in the blog post, there is much discussion about who will be publishing the paper. If instead it was just a blog post that said "oops, we beat you to it, our model is the best", it would have been different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com