Convert the plaintext to a number using some reversible encoding scheme. For instance, if the plaintext is an ASCII string, then take the ASCII index for each character to get fixed length binary strings, combine those strings.
Take that number, raise it to the power of e, and take the remainder after division of that number by n.
The SSL certificate is fine; the site just redirects from https to http for whatever reason, so you end up with no certificate at all. There's no SSL issue for Chrome to report about.
I think it was the fact that by default Chrome hides the protocol from the url, so I could'nt see at a glance it was downgraded. This is exactly what I was talking about when mentioning chrome removing this stuff was hindering troubleshooting. Once I found the setting in chrome to always show the http section, it became clear what was happening.
The Ioniq 5 leans into the same aesthetic too and that car is everywhere now, so it's not like there's anything fundamentally keeping that from working.
How about instead, we reject the premise that OpenAI should get away with being lazy and incompetent by dumping a bunch of slop and letting researchers do all the work for free, while they still get credit?
If they want to pretend that they can do maths, they should do maths.
Let us not forget that there's much more to this than just OpenAI being lazy and incompetent and willingly ignoring the high standards that researchers usually holds themselves to.
There's also the case of ethical violations, straight up scientific misconduct, as when OpenAI steals results of others (their customers) and present them as their own.
> 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.
Of course it's hard to say what to make of that without knowing what exactly went into the machine, but it certainly looks bad. And there's obviously a non-zero probability that it is indeed another instance of plagiarism, given that that's how they operate.
In this case, the author is a grad student, so what we're looking at is a company willing to steal from a student, ignoring whatever impact that could have on their career prospects, for a tiny piece of marketing material.
So... If you use ChatGPT for anything of value, including abstract stuff like obscure maths problems, you should assume that at some point in the future OpenAI will include that in their training set and sell it onto other people.
But this is even worse, because there is no way that OpenAI "trained" on this data between September 8, 2026, the date Chenglong Ma uploaded the paper to ChatGPT; and October 6, 2026, the date that OpenAI released a paper with "identical proof strategy and specific choices of notation" (Ma). That's one month, that's not the timescale for model training.
So this implies _not_ that OpenAI is training on user input, in the conventional sense of adjusting weights; but rather that they are *straight-up channeling ideas from user input*, and with a very short lag. You would think there would be about a million controls to prevent this.
This is next-level alarming. I would be very interested in knowing whether Chenlong activated the privacy (do not train, etc) options in ChatGPT, and any other details of their setup (which plan, etc). Also, note that "do not train" might be, in a lawyerly sense, considered by OpenAI to be strictly about weights, and not covering "we hoover up your results and regurgitate them".
Impossible to know without either more information about the actual occurrence or a deep understanding of the person making the claims. Just as OpenAI could easily be acting improperly, researchers who (understandably) feel deeply attacked by their problem getting solved right from under them might not be the most unbiased, either.
They’re inhaling the plain text conversations of millions of people, why wouldn’t they have summarizers and anomaly detection sitting on top of conversation logs. What assurances does OAI provide that they are not reading your messages for any purpose? Don’t they “review conversations for safety” ? How would they do that if they couldn’t just query everything you ever said to the chatbot. If you can see it so can they.
At this point I would be surprised if internal sandboxes are not trivially by-passed and that openai's agents do not (at the very least) have complete read access to all user accounts, chat histories and uploaded documents. Orthonogally, openai could still be wholesale lying about not training on this user data, of course.
> 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.
Make of those claims what you will; knowing now how they operate and how they are happy to take chat logs and convert them into new papers that they claim credit for, there's at least a non-zero probability that that's what happen here.
And imagine being completely fine with the risk of stealing work from students to produce marketing material. Who cares about their career prospectives anyway.
They already had to withdraw three of the manuscripts and correct several others. Who knows how much broken stuff there's in there; unfortunately they were too lazy to check themselves.
It's a well-established fact that Llama simply can't write comprehensible maths, and it's one of the major reasons that OpenAI are catching the flak they are. Dumping the manuscripts in their current form is a sign of laziness and incompetence.
And you're right, it's not really a theme around here, but there aren't that many mathematicians around HN. Check one of the maths forums and it'll be a common point of complaint.
Take that number, raise it to the power of e, and take the remainder after division of that number by n.
reply