[kedean]

They hadn't published the latest paper, but the many papers leading up to this were published, and so its able to work off of those. I'm not an expert in this field, but in this case, it seems they had already published a paper that listed this idea as an option and dismissed it, so in all likelihood Co-Scientist simply ignored the theoretical limitation.

Either way, the headline is garbage. It's like being amazed that your coworker who you've documented every step in your process to managed to solve that problem before you. "I've been working on it for months and they solved it in a day!" is obviously false, they have all of the information and conclusions you've been producing while you worked on it. In this case, telling the coworker every detail is the non-consensual AI training process.

[pockmarked19]

Yes, but it’s the same level of garbage as “Facebook was built in a week”, where the hidden part is “after The Harvard Connection spent two years iterating on the product and got everything stolen”.

Society and people in general don’t want to hear these “sour grape” gripes. Unless they are the ones affected adversely.

[basisword]

Interesting. In that case I wouldn't put too much blame on the headline - sounds like the scientist was pretty disingenuous when telling the story initially.