This is hard to argue without a fine understanding of how much insight OpenAI had about the stab at the problem from the "public rumor" alone.
If there was any sort of coarse insight that "they're trying to solve it this way", then both those things can be true:
- The massive amount of compute from OpenAI re-discovering Buckmaster's work solely from the coarse insight (and solving the rest as well).
- OpenAI still acknowledging they basically scooped the coarse insight using compute, and they're willing to credit Buckmaster.
Buckmaster says "Concretely, what Levent and I did was to take the Cordoba and Martinez-Zoroa program, which achieved blowup results with rough forcing, and, with a great deal of help from LLMs, push it to smooth forcing and to the incompressible Euler equations".
Could that simply be the prompt they used at OpenAI? How "stolen" would the proof be in that case?
If there was any sort of coarse insight that "they're trying to solve it this way", then both those things can be true:
- The massive amount of compute from OpenAI re-discovering Buckmaster's work solely from the coarse insight (and solving the rest as well).
- OpenAI still acknowledging they basically scooped the coarse insight using compute, and they're willing to credit Buckmaster.
Buckmaster says "Concretely, what Levent and I did was to take the Cordoba and Martinez-Zoroa program, which achieved blowup results with rough forcing, and, with a great deal of help from LLMs, push it to smooth forcing and to the incompressible Euler equations".
Could that simply be the prompt they used at OpenAI? How "stolen" would the proof be in that case?