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

221–230 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#221

Post by mishellaneous »

golol wrote: post #202
mishellaneous wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. the post you were replying to quotes Buckmaster specifically denying this: "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." > And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a so…

>"It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." To be honest, he was referring to routes (c) and (d) to the millenium problem, as far as I understand no more specific. Which is 2/4 routes.

i don't know if i understand what you're saying. but i'm no mathematician. here's the full statement in question once again:

> The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag.

so, you're saying that "the direction one arrives at in a few days" is (A) "the route through a smooth force, options c and d in Feffermann's statement of the problem", and no more specific than that, i.e. does not necessarily include (B) "the same path route as Luis and Diego" (quoted from the post i was replying to) (which, as i understand, is a subset of A -- directly from Buckmaster's quote: "the route A is is the route Luis and Diego opened")?

but the post i was replying to claims that "An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work", i.e. that the AI model could independently chose B. but choosing B implies choosing A, since B is a subset of A. and in this case it is irrelevant whether Buckmaster claimed that an AI could not independently choose A or B -- the point which you seem to be contesting.

EDIT: my understanding is that "solving the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem" consists of proving at least 1 of 4 precise statements ("options (a) through (d) of Fefferman's statement of the problem"), and Luis and Diego's work were developments towards a proof of statements (c) and (d), which have been recently further expanded by Alpoge and Buckmaster

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#222

Post by oldgradstudent »

robinhouston wrote: post #127
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.

Isn't that a non-denial denial?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#223

Post by cma »

kzrdude wrote: post #88
cma wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does he claim to have opted out of training too?

There are various forces at play here, academic honesty requires them to disclose any inputs regardless of license or ToS circumstances. While common sense reminds us here that if you send your data to an external entity’s computer, you are no longer in control of said data. The lines have blurred here clearly over the last decade, but that should have made the theory yet more clear to everyone involved: your data wi…

But if they didn't opt out of training, did they want OpenAI to opt out for them? Also they need to audit anyone they sent drafts to to make sure they opted out before submitting it.

I'd prefer things be opt in, and especially not start opt out, then try to trick you opt in with a popup defaulting to opt-in, like Anthropic did on consumer plans, but if they submitted anything on an opted-in plan it's not reasonable to be mad it trained on it.

Even still, I also believe for significant reasons that OpenAI would ignore the opt-out in selective cases and could be in the wrong here.

And the threats and terms they offered seem wrong either way, pending more context.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#225

Post by gcr »

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…

The employee was named as “Sebastien Bubeck.” It helps to read the article.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#226

Post by xdavidliu »

pred_ wrote: post #85
Keyframe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF ANYTHING, OpenAI ought to investigate and officially react to this particular communique since this dude was communicating on their behalf. If there are supporting evidence, I would expect nothing less than a firing and an apology. The issue itself is separate from the whole thing.

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

not if the dedication ends up making the company look bad

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#227

Post by gcr »

simianwords wrote: post #220
onidj wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems exceptionally unlikely to me that OpenAI would be "reading user prompts". More likely is a leak somewhere else. Obviously Anthropic/OpenAI are engaged in espionage stuff with each other. I am guessing Levent just mentioned something to someone at Anthropic and it got out.

why is this downvoted? do people really think OpenAI is snooping at people specifically? like they are looking for good leads into new problems or ideas and they found this guy's codex thread and used it? come on man, even for conspiracy theories this is stupid.

this is a highly marketable problem and specific teams at OpenAI were aware of specific competitor efforts. I would be surprised if this were happening on a large scale, but

1. Less than a hundred people in the world are working at this problem, 2. A significant fraction of those happen to work at competing hyperscalers, 3. Those hyperscalers repeatedly show themselves not to take user privacy seriously

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#229

Post by simianwords »

gcr wrote: post #227
simianwords wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is this downvoted? do people really think OpenAI is snooping at people specifically? like they are looking for good leads into new problems or ideas and they found this guy's codex thread and used it? come on man, even for conspiracy theories this is stupid.

this is a highly marketable problem and specific teams at OpenAI were aware of specific competitor efforts. I would be surprised if this were happening on a large scale, but 1. Less than a hundred people in the world are working at this problem, 2. A significant fraction of those happen to work at competing hyperscalers, 3. Those hyperscalers repeatedly show themselves not to take user privacy seriously

I'm not sure what your points 1 and 2 have to do with anything. Both directionally increase the probability of hyperscalers also finding the solution independently.

> Those hyperscalers repeatedly show themselves not to take user privacy seriously

where? Any examples?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#230

Post by golol »

mishellaneous wrote: post #221
golol wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." To be honest, he was referring to routes (c) and (d) to the millenium problem, as far as I understand no more specific. Which is 2/4 routes.

i don't know if i understand what you're saying. but i'm no mathematician. here's the full statement in question once again: > The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a…

I just meant that choosing the same 2 routes out of 4 would not at all be a great coincidence without knowing what Tristan was working on.
Post reply on HN