Sam Altman 发文回应与 Anthropic 一方围绕 Euler/Navier-Stokes 证明发布的争议,称对方只有 Euler 结果、双方协调失败,并称对方以抄袭指控相威胁。
Sam Altman 一方就 Navier-Stokes 证明争议公开己方叙述,读者可以对照双方说法理解这场跨公司协调纠纷。
我花了周末大部分时间与完成这项工作的团队交流。Seb——以及所有其他人——在整个过程中都表现出了正直与慷慨。
最初我们以为对方团队也解决了这个问题。我们本想合作,联合发布。
当我们得知他们解决了欧拉方程但未解决纳维-斯托克斯方程时,我们提出让他们先发布,建议由他们来拿这个奖,并且可选地让 Tristan 作为 OpenAI 证明重写版的领衔作者。我们觉得向 Levent(Anthropic 员工)提出同样的提议有难度,因为他本来也不愿与我们沟通或协调。我们对其他解决方案持开放态度。
我们非常希望协调合作。尽管对方团队不与我们沟通,我们也没有急于发布。对方团队却以毫无根据的抄袭指控威胁我们。
现在我们可以看到他们的工作了,双方的方法似乎并不相同。另外值得一提的是,我们最新的模型还能解决许多许多其他数学问题。
确实,我们尝试这个是因为上周互联网上有传言说 Anthropic 的模型解决了一个千禧年难题,我们很好奇我们的模型是否也能做到。
我想澄清几点: 1)这张截图是我联系 Levent 以协调我们的发布。我希望从这条消息中可以清楚地看出,我们是带着尽可能最好的意图来的。 2)我从未、从未要求将 Levent 从他本人作品的作者署名中移除(正如我的文字所表明的那样)。在与 Tristan 通话时,我惊讶地得知他们只解决了 Euler 而没有解决 Navier-Stokes;得知这一点后,我们头脑风暴了可能的推进路径。我们讨论的一个选项是,Tristan 可以作为重写 OpenAI 的 Navier-Stokes 证明的第一作者。正是在这个语境下,我说了“如果 Levent 不是 Anthropic 的员工,事情会简单一些”,因为我觉得由 Anthropic 的员工来署名 OpenAI 的工作是不合适的。重要的是,对方承认在他们的 Euler blowup 证明中使用了 Anthropic 的内部模型;因此我觉得我无法将 Levent 视为一名独立的学者。我想提出的另一个选项(但被打断了)是提供我们内部模型的访问权限,以便他们可以尝试完成他们的证明,并弥合 Euler 与 NS 之间的差距。同样,我不知道该如何处理向一名 Anthropic 员工授予 OpenAI 内部 IP 访问权限这件事。 3)再直白地重申一遍:正如我的文字清楚表明的,也正如我在通话中所说的,OpenAI 的意图是尽一切可能去庆祝他们的数学成就以及他们在 Euler 上做出的英勇努力。在通话中,我立刻遭到了一连串的诽谤,包括直接的威胁:如果我们宣布 Navier-Stokes,他就会立即带着一连串毫无根据的指控去找媒体。我驳斥了所有这些指控,但他回答说“你什么都做不了,我就是不信任你”。我很困惑,为什么有人会把一个庆祝(他们成就的!)的绝佳机会变成这样的争吵,就在那时我说,我不理解为什么会有人拿自己的职业生涯去冒险[为了毫无根据的指控]。说实话,在那一刻,我是想关心他,并做最后一次努力,争取有机会给予他们应得的所有荣誉。我为这个极其糟糕的用词深表歉意,这与我试图传达的意思恰恰相反。(我应该说明,顺便说一句,我当场就收回了那些话。) 4)总的来说,就个人层面而言,进行这些对话极其困难。尽管我一再请求,Levent 拒绝参加任何会议。正如 Sholto Douglas 所说,未来 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 之间将需要协调;我觉得我是在与 Anthropic 进行一场代理谈判,而那名 Anthropic 员工却拒绝直接参与。
原文
I would like to clarify a few things: 1) The screenshot is my reaching out to Levent to coordinate our releases. I hope it’s clear from the message that we came in with the best possible intentions. 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed possible paths forward. One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. Another option I wanted to propose (but got cut short) is to offer access to our internal model so that they could try to finish their proof and bridge the gap between Euler and NS. Again I did not know how to navigate giving access to internal OpenAI IP to an Anthropic employee. 3) To reiterate it plainly: as my text clearly indicates, and as I said during our call, OpenAI's intention was to do everything possible to celebrate their mathematical achievements and the heroic efforts that they made on Euler. In the call I was immediately met with a litany of slander, including direct threats that if we were to announce Navier-Stokes he would immediately go to the press with a barrage of unfounded accusations. I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Genuinely, at that moment, I was trying to care for him and do a last ditch attempt to get a chance to give them all the credits that they deserve. I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.) 4) Overall, on a personal level, it was incredibly difficult to have these conversations. Levent refused to attend any of the meetings despite my repeated asking. As Sholto Douglas said, there will need to be coordination between Anthropic and OpenAI in the future; I felt I was doing a proxy negotiation with Anthropic while the Anthropic employee refused to directly participate.
来源:Sam Altman · x.com