TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Some Lessons from the OpenAI FrontierMath Debacle

12 点作者 pja4 个月前

4 条评论

Havoc4 个月前
They really could have done all this in the open (test database aside) and would have had same outcome.<p>They gained literally nothing and took another knock on rep. It’s not like it was a mystery that they’re working on reasoning models.
th1231284 个月前
The mathematicians are training AI for a pittance and are not told about it.<p>It <i>is</i> their fault though to participate in writing a test set in the first place that will obviously be used in a non-scientific manner. &quot;Trust-me-bro&quot; science on other people&#x27;s closed servers.<p>But AI ethics is a dangerous field that can get you suicided.
评论 #42780050 未加载
aithrowawaycomm4 个月前
&gt; Also, a number of the mathematicians who worked on FrontierMath would possibly have not contributed to this if they knew about the funding and exclusive access. It feels concerning that OpenAI could have inadvertently paid people to contribute to capabilities when they might not have wanted to.<p>This is odd. The issue isn&#x27;t o3&#x27;s &quot;capabilities&quot; or AINotKillEveryoneism, it&#x27;s the spreading corrosion of OpenAI&#x27;s dishonest marketing. Presumably those contributors thought they were making a good benchmark. Instead they got misled into making an infomercial.<p>This specifically hurts Terence Tao, because it raises the question about whether or not <i>he</i> knew that OpenAI had privileged access. Epoch and OpenAI tarnished his reputation in order to improve o3&#x27;s reputation. Truly despicable.
rurban4 个月前
We now know the exact amount of solutions OpenAI got beforehand: 23-25%<p>Because 2% they could have solved without cheating