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

101–110 of 867 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#101

Post by Traster »

dash2 wrote: post #46
postalcoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 specu…

He didn't even make that accusation! > 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. The shocking/interesting thing would be if it was trained on the sessions. I think it's very implausible tha…

Parse that statement more carefully.

> I was told the model did not look up user data.

The naive way to read this is "Nothing you guys did influenced the way our model got to the solution".

The less naive way to read this is "Of course the model isn't looking up your user data. I (the guy trying to blackmail you to remove the Anthropic employee from credit on your paper) looked up your sessions, and tipped our model off on how to solve this problem".

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#102

Post by pred_ »

chvid wrote: post #36

"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 o…

In an earlier HN thread, there was speculation that Anthropic was being dishonest about the amount of human input required in some of their results; that was dismissed as conspiracy and flagged.

It seems clear now that mathematical results can be traded on some kind of obscure market made by the frontier AI labs.

I suppose it could go the other way too: “Dear Bubeck, how much will you pay me to not write that I did this with GLM-5.3?”

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#103

Post by Recursing »

traes wrote: post #59

The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy. [0] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20972141224714323... [1] https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902 [2] https://xcancel.com/danintheory/status/2097214838003138603 [3] https://…

Wow this is just bullying, it's insane that we are letting these people be in charge of the transition

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#104

Post by famouswaffles »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #80
famouswaffles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How else would you explain OpenAI suddendly assembling a team focused on working the same problem from the same angle than the researchers that just made a breakthrough?

What would be so hard to explain?

That OpenAI heard about the result and decided to throw a lot of money at it knowing it was within reach ?

That the model took an approach that was published years ago ?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#105

Post by margorczynski »

Well these are all allegations. Either way from what I understand the reasoning and proof was basically made by AI so I'm not sure what supposedly "stolen".

I'm just wondering how much real input Buckmaster gave here that he thinks the proof is his. I guess at the end of the day OAI still wins if ChatGPT was used to prove this successfully.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#106

Post by dumberquestions »

tristanj wrote: post #100
dumberquestions wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you find it to be extremely unlikely?

Because very few people actually have access to these logs, all access is monitored and recorded, and improper access will get you fired. It's not worth risking your job over something like this.

Not that I have strong reasons to think this is not true, but what reasons do we have to think it is? Has this been audited before?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#107

Post by camel-cdr »

coliveira wrote: post #64
instagraham wrote: post #49

When people worry about OpenAI stealing their chats and reproducing them elsewhere, I usually view the situation as unlikely - since chats are "trained" upon and not necessarily reproduced verbatim, you can assume that unless your chats depict a foundationally new and effective style of communication or ideation, there would be little need or use thereof of training on your chats. For eg: "Hey ChatGPT my name is X an…

At this point these models have been trained to recognize every important math and science result based on context. They can easily flag conversations concerning the top 100 open problems in mathematics and use them for their advancement.

There also is an insentive to silently give prominent people (e.g. Linus) or reasearchers like this custom tuned system prompts or even more powerful models.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#109

Post by ngomez »

az226 wrote: post #89
ummonk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best guess is that from the perspective of the OpenAI people, Buckmaster was letting his paranoia about OpenAI training tank his opportunity to receive the Clay Prize (it seems like Buckmaster and Alpoge's result isn't quite the full result required for the Clay Prize, whereas apparently OpenAI does have that full result worked out, using the same approach that Buckmaster and Alpoge had been exploring). Whether th…

Zero data retention, wink. No looksies, wink. No trainsies, wink.

Well, Buckmaster says both his and Alpöge's use of Codex was non-institutional, and OpenAI claims the right to train their models on inputs and outputs of non-enterprise users in their service policies [0]. So I'm not sure they were even promised that.

[0] https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#110

Post by MathmoKiwi »

tristanj wrote: post #100
dumberquestions wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you find it to be extremely unlikely?

Because very few people actually have access to these logs, all access is monitored and recorded, and improper access will get you fired. It's not worth risking your job over something like this.

There is almost zero risk to your job (quite the opposite, you might be richly rewarded!) if you're simply doing something here which the company wants done. (remember, billions and billions of dollars are at stake here! Do you really think there is no chance at all they would do it??)
Post reply on HN