Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Remember guys, if they are reading it for wrongthink, they are reading it for industrial espionage.

Anthropic and openAI just announced they’re spinning out competitors to their biggest customers… right after ingesting all of their IP and contracts. Do the math.

(Or don’t, because they’ve been caught stealing math research)

> Anthropic and openAI just announced they’re spinning out competitors to their biggest customers… right after ingesting all of their IP and contracts. Do the math.

Do you have any links to further reading on this. I haven't read anything like this and also couldn't find anything in their newsrooms. The only thing I read is that they want to have more people work on implementations.

I think it's just a logical conclusion if everyone keeps feeding OpenAI and Anthropic data. I don't think it's imminent, but if AI keeps improving and regulation is very lax I could see this world developing in 5-10 years.

Say OpenAI builds GPT-11 and they realize it can do 95% of their clients work. Why not hire away key people from the client or the client's competitors and start eating into their market share? OpenAI would realize if GPT-11 has this ability then Anthropic is probably able to do the same thing. The company that has the most money and credit available is going to be able to buy more compute. OpenAI and Anthropic cannot slow down unless mandated to by the government.

loading story #50222757
Interesting. Could you share a link to this announce?
> because they’ve been caught stealing math research

No. They haven't been caught stealing. Tristan Buckmaster publicly expressed surprise that the OpenAI model has used the niche approach he pursued (with AI assistance). 10,000 agents exploring various approaches make it much less surprising.

Another anecdotal data from an arxiv preprint [0]: "After the paper was written, the author learned that the same result was also proved independently and by a different method by Ningyi Li [7]. The result is also contained in a paper [8] released by OpenAI on October 6, 2026, in which the proof strategy and specific choices of notation are identical to a preliminary version of the present paper that was uploaded to ChatGPT on September 8, 2026."

So not only did OpenAI publish a proof similar to one discussed on ChatGPT, but also there were other possible strategies to prove the result, that OpenAI didn't follow.

Also, up to my knowledge, on the free plan, OpenAI doesn't claim that they won't use the chat data for training. So this seems plausible.

[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10072

The "coincidence" defense never works for random individuals so I won't buy it when it comes companies worth billions which will lie, cheat, and deceive to make even more billions. They've been caught lying and stealing again and again. After so many years of this I think any trust put in them is either blissful ignorance or willful misdirection.
Wait are you saying: 1) the simultaneous invention defense is never valid for individuals, and 2) you don’t base your beliefs on what’s right, but on some kind of tit-for-tat retaliation?

That seems like a fraught way to live.

You’re asking a loaded question based on things that were never said. Very lowbrow.

One thing is how uniformly a rule is applied. Another thing is whether a rule is "right" to begin with. I addressed the first because it’s far more straightforward and objective. You did some mental gymnastics to name-drop the second without even the effort to say something about it. Weak strawman.

Another thing I addressed is the lack of trustworthiness of these companies. They lied to you again and again but they wouldn’t lie to you now, would they? You left that out completely, so maybe you even agree.

Next time if you want the courtesy of a reply, extend the courtesy of not bringing just low-effort strawman and loaded questions.

It's not a coincidence... they literally just span up agents on every possible variant of the problem.

There are 10k agents and Tristan's approach wasn't even groundbreaking novelty, it was literally based on existing published literature from Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa that the agents have seen.

It's not just probable that agents would persue his particular niche of trying to construct a blowup. It's guaranteed if you just consider the basic setup.

loading story #50220771
{"deleted":true,"id":50221147,"parent":50220361,"time":1792849351,"type":"comment"}