OpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academia
OpenAI’s sly mathematical breakthrough sends a chill through academia
OpenAI 的狡黠数学突破令学术界感到寒意
OpenAI’s announcement Tuesday that it has solved one of mathematics’ legendary Millennium Prize problems should have been a moment of triumph. The result is both an undeniable achievement and a striking demonstration of just how rapidly AI is transforming mathematics. But before it was even formally announced, the breakthrough had been complicated by the unusual circumstances that prompted OpenAI to pursue the problem: After hearing other researchers were making progress, it seems to have thrown its considerable resources into a last-minute effort to beat them to the punch. The ensuing controversy has surfaced allegations of scooping, spying, and flagrant violations of long-standing academic norms that researchers fear could have a chilling effect on the field.
OpenAI 周二宣布其解决了数学界传奇的“千禧年大奖难题”之一，这本应是一个值得欢庆的时刻。这一成果既是不可否认的成就，也鲜明地展示了人工智能正在以多快的速度改变数学领域。然而，在正式宣布之前，这一突破就因 OpenAI 介入该问题的特殊情况而变得复杂：在听说其他研究人员取得进展后，OpenAI 似乎投入了巨大的资源进行“临门一脚”，试图抢在他们之前完成。随之而来的争议引发了关于抢发成果、间谍行为以及公然违反长期学术规范的指控，研究人员担心这可能会对该领域产生寒蝉效应。
As Abhishek Saha, a mathematics professor at Queen Mary University of London, explains it, OpenAI has engaged in the “kind of things that mathematicians will generally not do.”
正如伦敦玛丽女王大学数学教授 Abhishek Saha 所解释的那样，OpenAI 的所作所为是“数学家通常不会做的事情”。
In a blog post published Tuesday, OpenAI said it took one of its unreleased models just 88 hours to find a solution to the Navier-Stokes problem, a thorny quandary concerning the movement of fluids. On account of the $1 million bounty available for whoever solves it, the problem is among mathematics’ most heavily researched, but it has nevertheless stumped human researchers for close to 90 years. OpenAI said its model solved the problem by focusing a swarm of roughly 10,000 AI agents powered by its internal model on the task and hailed the achievement as a “milestone.”
在周二发布的一篇博客文章中，OpenAI 表示其一个未发布的模型仅用了 88 小时就找到了纳维-斯托克斯（Navier-Stokes）问题的解决方案，这是一个关于流体运动的棘手难题。由于解决该问题可获得 100 万美元的奖金，它成为了数学界研究最深入的问题之一，但近 90 年来一直困扰着人类研究人员。OpenAI 表示，其模型通过集中约 10,000 个由其内部模型驱动的 AI 智能体来完成这项任务，并称这一成就为“里程碑”。
“If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.” “如果你不想让我客气，那我也没必要客气。”
But the timing of the announcement has raised eyebrows. Just one day earlier, New York University mathematics professor Tristan Buckmaster published findings on a related problem with Levent Alpöge, a researcher at OpenAI’s archrival Anthropic (although Alpöge was not, here, working on behalf of his employer). Buckmaster said he contacted OpenAI after learning the company had become aware of their progress, to ask when it began working on the problem and what data its model had been trained on. The conversation, he said, quickly turned sour, with an OpenAI researcher asking him, “Why would you ruin your career?” when he said he would go public with what happened. When he asked why going public would ruin his career, Buckmaster said he received the following reply: “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.” OpenAI urged Buckmaster to instead publish the work and credit OpenAI’s internal model, dropping Alpöge as coauthor.
但这一宣布的时机引发了质疑。就在前一天，纽约大学数学教授 Tristan Buckmaster 与 OpenAI 主要竞争对手 Anthropic 的研究员 Levent Alpöge（尽管 Alpöge 在此并非代表其雇主工作）共同发表了关于相关问题的研究结果。Buckmaster 表示，在得知 OpenAI 已经了解到他们的进展后，他联系了该公司，询问其何时开始研究该问题以及其模型使用了什么数据进行训练。他说，谈话很快变得不愉快，当他表示要公开此事时，一名 OpenAI 研究人员问他：“你为什么要毁掉自己的职业生涯？”当他询问为什么公开此事会毁掉职业生涯时，Buckmaster 说他收到了这样的回复：“如果你不想让我客气，那我也没必要客气。”OpenAI 敦促 Buckmaster 改为发表该研究并注明归功于 OpenAI 的内部模型，同时要求剔除 Alpöge 作为合著者。
Buckmaster said he asked OpenAI whether it had accessed his sessions on Codex, which he had used while tackling the problem, but that OpenAI grew increasingly evasive, even hostile, in its responses. In statements since, including the blog post announcing the result, OpenAI has flatly denied using any specific user data. “We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem,” the company said.
Buckmaster 表示，他曾询问 OpenAI 是否访问过他在解决该问题时使用的 Codex 会话记录，但 OpenAI 的回应变得越来越回避，甚至带有敌意。在此后的声明中，包括宣布该结果的博客文章，OpenAI 断然否认使用了任何特定的用户数据。该公司表示：“我们（研究人员和智能体）在他们公开发布之前，没有通过任何方式看到他们的工作成果——特别是，为了解决这个问题，没有访问任何特定的用户数据。”
But OpenAI could not conclusively rule out an indirect influence. “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models,” it said, while stressing that the two proofs differ significantly. Comments from OpenAI researchers on X echo those denials.
但 OpenAI 无法完全排除间接影响的可能性。该公司表示：“虽然可能性不大，但我们不能排除从他们使用我们产品中得出的去标识化数据有助于改进我们的模型，”同时强调这两个证明存在显著差异。OpenAI 研究人员在 X 平台上的评论也呼应了这些否认。
It is difficult to say exactly what happened. Timelines are tangled, research overlaps, and the provenance of AI-generated work is tough, if not impossible, to identify at the best of times. And it’s hardly a surprise that different players might compete to solve one of the most famous mathematical problems in the world, particularly one attached to a hefty prize.
很难确切地说发生了什么。时间线错综复杂，研究内容重叠，而且即使在最好的情况下，AI 生成成果的来源也很难（如果不是不可能）被识别出来。不同的参与者竞相解决世界上最著名的数学难题之一，尤其是那些附带巨额奖金的难题，这并不令人惊讶。
But aspects of OpenAI’s account are hard to explain. By the company’s own telling, the effort was a hurried and incredibly expensive affair, costing it millions of dollars. Yet the company says it has no intention of claiming the bounty, which, in any case, has yet to be awarded by the Clay Mathematics Institute, which administers it. It said its only goal “is to report on the substantial progress of our AI models.” The company does not appear to have expended much effort on tackling Navier-Stokes before September, or if it has, it hasn’t spoken about it publicly.
但 OpenAI 的说法中有些方面难以解释。据该公司自己所述，这项工作是一项仓促且极其昂贵的工程，耗资数百万美元。然而，该公司表示无意领取奖金，况且该奖金尚未由负责管理的克雷数学研究所（Clay Mathematics Institute）颁发。它表示其唯一的目标是“报告我们 AI 模型取得的实质性进展”。该公司似乎在 9 月之前并没有在解决纳维-斯托克斯问题上投入太多精力，或者即使有，也没有公开谈论过。
So why the rush? OpenAI’s explanation effectively amounts to a thunderous “Why not?” The company said it began working on the problem after hearing rumors that other researchers were making progress on Millennium Prize problems. It found those rumors “on Twitter,” said OpenAI researcher Sébastien Bubeck at a press briefing reported on by Science. “So we thought to ourselves: ‘We have such a strong model. Why don’t we try to solve also a Millennium Prize problem?’” Bubeck said.
那么为什么要这么匆忙？OpenAI 的解释实际上相当于一个响亮的“为什么不呢？”该公司表示，在听到其他研究人员在千禧年大奖难题上取得进展的传言后，他们开始着手研究这个问题。据《科学》杂志报道，OpenAI 研究员 Sébastien Bubeck 在新闻发布会上表示，他们是在“Twitter 上”发现这些传言的。“所以我们心想：‘我们有这么强大的模型，为什么不试着也解决一个千禧年大奖难题呢？’”Bubeck 说道。
OpenAI said it only later realized the rumors concerned Alpöge and Buckmaster. Beyond addressing Buckmaster’s allegations about the use of his data, OpenAI has not publicly responded to his other claims and directed The Verge to its blog when asked for comment. Bubeck, who Buckmaster named in his account, has disputed parts of it, denying he ever asked Buckmaster to remove Alpöge as coauthor.
OpenAI 表示，后来才意识到这些传言涉及 Alpöge 和 Buckmaster。除了回应 Buckmaster 关于使用其数据的指控外，OpenAI 没有公开回应他的其他主张，并在被要求置评时将《The Verge》引向其博客。Buckmaster 在其叙述中提到的 Bubeck 对部分内容提出了异议，否认曾要求 Buckmaster 将 Alpöge 从合著者名单中剔除。
Even setting aside the most explosive allegations, aspects of OpenAI’s conduct the company has plainly acknowledged have shocked mathematicians. The apparent rush to beat other researchers to a result…
即使撇开最爆炸性的指控不谈，OpenAI 明确承认的某些行为也令数学家们感到震惊。这种为了抢在其他研究人员之前得出结果而表现出的仓促感……