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

181–190 of 863 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#181

Post by kzrdude »

dist-epoch wrote: post #154

This is the plot of 3 Body Problem, the Dark Forest. You need to hide yourself (the problem you are working on) or the super advanced aliens will obliterate you (start working on your problem) the moment they know you exist (rumors the problem is amendable to LLMs).

Some of the involved people are dramatically naive if they believe they can simultaneously hide themselves from OpenAI while sending their arguments to a cloud service owned by OpenAI.

While I support their argument - push for stronger data and privacy protections from OpenAI and similar - it is naive to believe we can have privacy while sending our data to third parties. It's clearly better to be safe than to be sorry here. Well, clearly better in terms of privacy. In terms of the maths gold rush, who can say what's better, that probably favours those taking more risk.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#182

Post by macleginn »

tristanj wrote: post #160
macleginn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's some glaring mistakes in your framing. First, this is an unnamed OpenAI employee speaking, not OpenAI the organization. Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career". The actual quote is "Why would you ruin your career?", which implies the researcher would damage their own career, i.e. via self-sabotage. Then the actual "threat" is "If you don…

This is how deniable threats work. The promise of "not being nice" in conjunction with "ruining the career" is as clear a threat as there can be in writing.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#183

Post by singularity2001 »

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…

Ignoring the drama, when can we expect the lean proof of this great sensational discovery?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#185

Post by kingkandu »

closedAI should give this guy a million bucks and fire everyone internally who was involved with trying to recreate his work and threatening him.

but they probably won't and if it's happened on some obscure math research it's happening everyday everywhere else.

Fully local AI compute can't come fast enough, these guys have IP theft baked into their bones.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#186

Post by timmg »

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://…

Interesting that both said “more tomorrow”. If someone accused me of something I didn’t do I’d be pretty clear about it right away.

If I needed to get my story straight, well, it might take a little time and coordination…

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#187

Post by blini-kot »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #90
dash2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be shocking if it wasn’t trained on sessions. Have you read the ToS parts for both openai and anthropic that talk about it? It’s so obviously a weaselly way to say "no we do not train on your exact chats but we talked with legal and we think a cleanroom reimagining of your convo is probably fine and frankly where else are we going to get such a treasure trove of training data?" There’s potentially trillions…

at first I thought your post was a bit revolting with "have you read ToS?" bit, but in the end I completely agree and understand

I also don't get why it was downvoted, other than due to people not reading past the first sentence - although in the modern world's attention deficit that is understandable too

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#189

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

tempfile wrote: post #178
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely right. Why the downvotes? If OpenAI are using but not acknowledging the work of others that's plagiarism. If they don't know for sure, but aren't performing due dilligence to make sure they aren't, that's also plagiarism.

I can imagine excuses for unknowing plagiarism in this case. What is described in the article seems much more serious: a research program that was only initiated following reports of the author's similar program . In this case no excuses of "I didn't know" can apply, it is not like this revealed some obscure work from the 1980s nobody could reasonably have foreseen. And as far as I can tell this program was only real…

Your comment was greyed out when I saw it earlier, maybe you missed some downvotes?

About the plagiarism issue, I model it as OpenAI being an advisor and their AI a PhD student. If the advisor puts their name on a paper behind that of their PhD and it turns out the PhD copied the text of the paper from somewhere else the advisor is also responsible of plagiarism, not just the student. The least the advisor can do is withdraw their authorship from the paper.

But, yeah, point well made: it could be much worse than that. Like an advisor instructing a student to copy someone else's paper.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#190

Post by wheresyourat »

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN