Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

cims.nyu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#31

Post by macleginn »

qnleigh wrote: post #17

> It was also said that if OpenAI posted after us, they would say that we deserved the Clay Prize, and that we were the “closest humans to the problem”. I declined both offers. I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. T…

I think this should be in the title of the post. 'OpenAI allegedly threatening to ruin a prominent researcher's career', or smth like that.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#32

Post by famouswaffles »

tigershark wrote: post #25
sk4rekr0w wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but only if you take this one sided statement at face value.

Why would have they rushed the publication if this was not true? Are you also suggesting that he fully invented the call with Open AI?

The results being true, the 'deal' that was made being true doesn't mean some of the implied accusations here are true, for example - that Open AI used their Codex logs to drive their breakthrough.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#33

Post by wrasee »

20k wrote: post #21

>I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. If you think these companies are not training on your prompts you are incredibly naive. These models were built by stealing and pirating literally…

It's equally naive to believe FUD spread on the internet, without evidence.

But I would love to see more informed insight/discussion on this.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#34

Post by ks1723 »

I must miss some important context here. What exactly was the purpose of his initial email to OpenAI in the first place?

Telling OpenAI that Anthropic has apparently solved an important problem but most likely that refers to him and he is using OpenAI models (not Anthropic's)?

And he wants to clarify that with OpenAI in advance? And get a pardon for Anthropic's likely but false press statements?

I dont get it.

[edited] needless to say, the behavior of the OpenAI employee is really despicable

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#35

Post by [deleted] »

ks1723 wrote: post #34

I must miss some important context here. What exactly was the purpose of his initial email to OpenAI in the first place? Telling OpenAI that Anthropic has apparently solved an important problem but most likely that refers to him and he is using OpenAI models (not Anthropic's)? And he wants to clarify that with OpenAI in advance? And get a pardon for Anthropic's likely but false press statements? I dont get it. [edite…

[deleted]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#36

Post by chvid »

"I was shown a prompt and told the internal research model had simply been given the problem statement. Levent had been told by Sebastien “very little human input” had been used. This turned out not to be true."

The money in nerdy frontier math is very little. The money in Big AI is very very much.

So the deal is this: We will pay an army of you guys very well and you will get to work on your favorite problems. The only thing is if you find something you will have to credit the Machine God.

Do you think you can handle that?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#39

Post by tigershark »

famouswaffles wrote: post #32
tigershark wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would have they rushed the publication if this was not true? Are you also suggesting that he fully invented the call with Open AI?

The results being true, the 'deal' that was made being true doesn't mean some of the implied accusations here are true, for example - that Open AI used their Codex logs to drive their breakthrough.

So are you baselessly assuming that he is lying? He explicitly reported that he was threatened and your answer here is to defend OpenAI no matter what.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#40

Post by postalcoder »

mayakacz wrote: post #12

I'm not one to comment often but this really pisses me off. OpenAI looked at user data, stole world class researchers' work, and then tried to threaten those researchers to do what would make their corporation profit (which they would anyways!). Imagine you have been working on a terribly difficult math problem for a decade. This is a result you have spent years on, and what you will likely be remembered for. And to…

I'm stunned that people are taking this accusation as a fact.

OpenAI is no stranger to rivalry with Anthropic but 1. it's not like user data is sitting around on some kitchen table somewhere and 2. I consider OpenAI to be as economically motivated as any other actor in this space and playing around with user data like that would destroy their business.

There are things that Buckmaster alleged and things that he speculated. The entire training data thing is speculation. If this is pissing you off, then you ought to evaluate how you ingest information.

Post reply on HN