Anthropic and openAI just announced they’re spinning out competitors to their biggest customers… right after ingesting all of their IP and contracts. Do the math.
(Or don’t, because they’ve been caught stealing math research)
Do you have any links to further reading on this. I haven't read anything like this and also couldn't find anything in their newsrooms. The only thing I read is that they want to have more people work on implementations.
Say OpenAI builds GPT-11 and they realize it can do 95% of their clients work. Why not hire away key people from the client or the client's competitors and start eating into their market share? OpenAI would realize if GPT-11 has this ability then Anthropic is probably able to do the same thing. The company that has the most money and credit available is going to be able to buy more compute. OpenAI and Anthropic cannot slow down unless mandated to by the government.
Can you give me an example where this would make sense, because I just don't see e.g. OpenAI starting a grocery store chain or Anthropic building a wind turbine manufacturing company.
What I can see is that some company's products become useless, e.g. translation tools, as it is something that you can just do within ChatGPT or Claude.
Also, in such a future businesses would be reorganized to use AI. That probably means less employees and reduced human complexity. The business processes are further abstracted from people making it easier for a big AI lab to move in.
If I was looking at businesses today where the big AI labs could step in I would look for businesses where they earn high margins based on intellectually complex tasks. Maybe the most pure example would be trading in the stock market since it can be completely done by a computer. Then you have areas like law which process large amounts of data but are also heavily based on relationships.
For sales I'm sorry, but I don't think sales companies exist? Sales is usually just a part of another company. Some of those employees might be made redundant as AI products complete part of their work, but that would also happen through OpenAI's or Anthropic's products.
So for both of those I don't see what kind of company they could spin off (excluding the example of a company that does AI implementations as I mentioned that one in my initial comment) that would compete with an existing company. For all of these things offering a product that allows existing companies to replace employees sounds like the more scalable, profitable and flexible strategy.
No. They haven't been caught stealing. Tristan Buckmaster publicly expressed surprise that the OpenAI model has used the niche approach he pursued (with AI assistance). 10,000 agents exploring various approaches make it much less surprising.
So not only did OpenAI publish a proof similar to one discussed on ChatGPT, but also there were other possible strategies to prove the result, that OpenAI didn't follow.
Also, up to my knowledge, on the free plan, OpenAI doesn't claim that they won't use the chat data for training. So this seems plausible.
That seems like a fraught way to live.
One thing is how uniformly a rule is applied. Another thing is whether a rule is "right" to begin with. I addressed the first because it’s far more straightforward and objective. You did some mental gymnastics to name-drop the second without even the effort to say something about it. Weak strawman.
Another thing I addressed is the lack of trustworthiness of these companies. They lied to you again and again but they wouldn’t lie to you now, would they? You left that out completely, so maybe you even agree.
Next time if you want the courtesy of a reply, extend the courtesy of not bringing just low-effort strawman and loaded questions.
There are 10k agents and Tristan's approach wasn't even groundbreaking novelty, it was literally based on existing published literature from Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa that the agents have seen.
It's not just probable that agents would persue his particular niche of trying to construct a blowup. It's guaranteed if you just consider the basic setup.
Monkeys on typewriters excuse only works for huge companies who can afford to buy opinions.
From what I read online that researcher also used a lot of AI to find this approach, so it might just be the one that is the easiest to find for AI agents and the timing would then only be caused by them working on it around the same time.
My point was explicitly that this didn't happen. I said that they took every possible path and published the one that worked. It's exactly throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
> exactly after one of their users took it.
All parties agree that what happened is that someone had told someone working at OpenAI that Anthropic employees are working on Navier stokes. This is where the timing comes from.
---
What you are implying is this: OpenAI didn't do the throw shit at the wall approach as outlined in their release blog they actually secretely monitor everyones chat logs and found the idea in Tristan's Chat history and stole and published it.
Or some variant of this. You are only implying what you think is the truth, please state it outright. Don't beat around the bush.
> they actually secretely monitor everyones chat logs
Are you for real? They openly monitor everyone’s chat logs. If you had bothered to ask ChatGPT it would literally tell you that they do it. That’s how they know (and yet still fail to report, so the mechanism isn't there for reporting to authorities) that someone is planning a school shooting [0]. They monitor anything and anyone of interest.
Now if “having agents” was enough then we’d just ask for the cure for cancer or proof for every theorem and wait for a few days. Obviously they need guidance to not get stuck in a dead end or have to brute force everything. OAI’s mathematicians weren’t able to provide a good direction so the agents stalled until someone else found the key and only then OAI had their breakthrough.
[0] https://airisk.mit.edu/ai-incidents/1375-openai-allegedly-di...
I'm not uninformed on this. I actually wasted a lot of time on it since my interests intersect at this. I've watched the numberphile interviews, read the drama, various takes etc.
What I'm saying is that its highly unlikely that in this case that Sébastien Bubeck from OpenAi decided to steal some critical idea from Buckmasters chat and feed it "Bell" the unreleased model that produced the solution.
> Obviously they need guidance to not get stuck in a dead end or have to brute force everything
Dude they did brute force everything. This is what I keep trying to say. They said they spent 130 billion output tokens.
This is quite literally like 500,000 books worth of text.
[0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6783457-what-is-chatgpt
> I'm not uninformed on this
Sure, that’s why in your previous comment you were making it sound ridiculous to believe OAI is “secretly monitoring everyone’s logs”. You dug that hole.
> What I'm saying is that its highly unlikely that in this case that Sébastien Bubeck from OpenAi decided to steal some critical idea from Buckmasters chat and feed it "Bell" the unreleased model that produced the solution.
Why "highly unlikely"? Because OpenAI like all other big tech would never (ab)use a mechanism they even already officially have in place to boost up their valuation? Because they never used people's data in the past? Because they aren't famous for ingesting all of the internet's data with or without permission?
You choose to give them the benefit of the doubt despite every bit of past evidence and experience. That's not an argument, that's wishful thinking that "this time it's definitely different".