Demanding that a collaborator be removed from a paper so they can take his place is certainly already academic misconduct.

Bubek appears to have admitted to academic misconduct and an attempt at intimidation, and he somehow thought "but actually I walked it back immediately/I wasn't really serious" was sufficient defense. He also seems to claim that he was the one who initiated contact... which makes the problem worse, not better.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not an AI did anything new, unique or special.

This makes sense until you learn their capital expenditure is increasing at a relative rate, meaning that they're making an even bigger loss off of those profits.

not even deeply disappointing, just mundane old disappointing.

The Millenium prizes weren't about massive impressive computational achievements, and true to form this counterexample is actually useless for actual Navier-Stokes sims, provides zero efficiency gains, doesn't even preclude input ranges that anyone would actually use, etc.

The prizes were set at that level with the idea that the prize money was small enough to encourage individual mathematicians to engage with these problems, or encourage non-mathematicians to seriously engage with math. They were small enough that it was judged that larger corporations wouldn't engage with them because the problems themselves weren't really anything they could profit off directly without also contributing to their competitors.

It is typical of OpenAI's lack of strategic foresight that they'd tell people in the press release that they spent $20 million dollars for a $1 million dollar prize. They just wanted to tick a box, and again true to form they completely devalued the achievement in the process.

even without the Carlin quote, why would I want an average person to do specialist work?

I, too, can structure a metric to tell me what I want to hear and tell the customer that their own identity and motivations are wrong.

I don't expect that to increase sales. Or productivity. Or efficiency.

Science isn't about your morals or what you think is proper or worth being smug about.

If someone's approach upsets you, aren't you holding your feelings above the facts?

just out of interest... where does the boundary around "social media" stop?

This isn't capitalism. It's closer to mercantilism.

do you have a link to a case that definitively establishes that AI training is legally transformative?

If there's an actual mechanism to this outcome for him, it's the inverse of what you seem to think.

He's over invested in new data centers that are all taking longer to build than projected, has debt to service because of that that he needs the AI companies to pay for, and they have not yet demonstrated that they can actually be profitable enough to ever do that.

It occurs to me that this isn't the first time he's tried to do that during this administration. Look up the Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act from December last year.

I'm not sure that doing these folks the favor of assuming there must be rational thought behind their assertions is the right strategic move.

is this a number that has any reference or are you just caught up in the exuberance?

He used a genome language model...? Like a statistical model that shows the relationship between different parts of the genome...?

How did you guys think they did this in the past...?

There's... nothing new here. This is relying on people not understanding what these terms mean, including perhaps the author.