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

121–130 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#121

Post by famouswaffles »

calf wrote: post #117
famouswaffles wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result

We are told in the statement that there were rumours already going around about a Stokes result (I even know about the rumors in question. It was all over twitter in the right spaces) and that Tristan contacts OpenAI about the rumors. In the message, it's pretty clear Tristan has made some result.

So either the rumors or Tristan's contact would explain it fine.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#122

Post by ggcr »

Reminds me, kinda, to when Astra was launched and OpenAI announced an improvement to the bounded prime gap. Which BTW, Prof. Julia Stadlmann had published an independent result only a few days earlier

Stadlmann improved it from 246 to 240, OpenAI later claimed 186 I think?

Maybe someone can help clarify? I am no expert at all, but I can't help but see similarities.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#123

Post by hodgehog11 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #116
ngomez wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Only for ChatGPT, if the user hasn’t opted out. Would mathematicians be using ChatGPT for this kind of work? Genuinely asking, I know nothing about this!

Yes, mathematicians are. And yes, most of my colleagues did not even know the opt-out was an option.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#124

Post by kzrdude »

ggcr wrote: post #122

Reminds me, kinda, to when Astra was launched and OpenAI announced an improvement to the bounded prime gap. Which BTW, Prof. Julia Stadlmann had published an independent result only a few days earlier Stadlmann improved it from 246 to 240, OpenAI later claimed 186 I think? Maybe someone can help clarify? I am no expert at all, but I can't help but see similarities. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31126

What's the clarification? It seems like they were aware of each other's work, eventually, but Stadlmann published (a preprint) first.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#125

Post by [deleted] »

n2d4 wrote: post #83

Drama/accusation summary: - Aug 15th: Tristan Buckmaster & Levent Alpöge make progress on a few important math problems, "finite-time blowup with smooth forcing for incompressible porous media, for Boussinesq, and for 3d incompressible Euler." - they do NOT have a proof for the $1,000,000 Millenium Prize problem. BUT, they do claim to have a proof for a similar (non-Millenium) Navier Stokes problem that could help le…

[deleted]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#126

Post by Certhas »

Keyframe wrote: post #115
pred_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, given how dedicated he appears to be to the company, a promotion and a raise.

Dark take, but I really hope not. If anything it would be a good opportunity to buy some goodwill by washing themselves from all the alleged shadiness so far.

This is OpenAI though. There were zero visible consequences to them unleashing a swarm of agents on the public internet. We will see how it goes down but my prior is zero consequence and a statement along the lines of "Isn't our AI great? Also we love transparency, ethics and collaboration."

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#127

Post by robinhouston »

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…

For context and balance, Bubeck has tweeted a curiously non-specific denial:

> A series of false and inflammatory allegations against me are currently circulating on social channels. To clarify, I came into the discussion following academic norms, and I'm disappointed that it has come to this. Anyone who knows me knows that academic standards are of the highest importance to me. Will have more to say tomorrow.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#128

Post by Certhas »

senordevnyc wrote: post #116
ngomez wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Only for ChatGPT, if the user hasn’t opted out. Would mathematicians be using ChatGPT for this kind of work? Genuinely asking, I know nothing about this!

If I am reading your question correctly you are asking about chat interface Vs Codex/Claude code? If so, in my experience Codex/Claude code use is widespread for mathematicians who are seriously using these tools.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#129

Post by calf »

famouswaffles wrote: post #121
calf wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result

We are told in the statement that there were rumours already going around about a Stokes result (I even know about the rumors in question. It was all over twitter in the right spaces) and that Tristan contacts OpenAI about the rumors. In the message, it's pretty clear Tristan has made some result. So either the rumors or Tristan's contact would explain it fine.

One should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something.

The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so in fact this explanation confounds several things (in terms of the mutual knowledge of the conversants and their intentions).

Based on this lack of understanding it is pointless to continue this thread

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#130

Post by robotpepi »

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.

> 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.

That's beyond naive. The money this would mean for OpenAI (and the money they've already spent)...

Post reply on HN