I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions.
This is sort of a weird interpretation:
> One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed
- It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort.
- Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showing any work they're either brilliant or cheating (probably cheating). Further, each step of progress isn't the same proportion of effort. What if moving from C -> D was actually the smallest contribution and just required a novel perspective to make the breakthrough.
This part is wrong:
> An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem.
- it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem
- it wasn't a chat excerpt, it was more like their entire git repo and project progress reports
This is sort of a weird interpretation:
> One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed
- It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort.
- Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showing any work they're either brilliant or cheating (probably cheating). Further, each step of progress isn't the same proportion of effort. What if moving from C -> D was actually the smallest contribution and just required a novel perspective to make the breakthrough.
This part is wrong:
> An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem.
- it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem
- it wasn't a chat excerpt, it was more like their entire git repo and project progress reports