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

231–240 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#231

Post by HDThoreaun »

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.

Yes that sounds like something openAI would do to me. Not that they’re just looking through random professors chats but they heard buckmaster made progress on navier stokes and decided to read his chats.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#232

Post by b89kim »

- Tristan and his co-author (Harvard/Anthropic) developed a theoretical framework and validated it using Codex and Claude.

- OpenAI did related research around similar timeframe.

- Tristan claimed OpenAI offered a proposal that included dropping the Anthropic-affiliated co-author.

- Sebastian (a prominent OpenAI researcher involved) denied these claims.

- Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their session.

- OpenAI's theory may hold up, but it will require long-term validation to confirm.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#233

Post by HDThoreaun »

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.

My personal friend worked under bubeck as a grad student and told me he’s abusive.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#234

Post by ajnin »

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.

> https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...

They explicitly say that they use your "content" to improve their models. Considering they practically have infinite compute at their disposal, why is it surprising that they would look for juicy data in there to make them look good ? When they ingested basically the entirety of human knowledge without regard to the rights of others, when they burn books by the thousands, when their relentless barrage of bots have rendered the Web borderline unusable, why would they stop at that line ?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#235

Post by xdavidliu »

llelouch wrote: post #201
paxys wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through those tweets, and can’t see the bullying everyone is referring to. Mind elaborating?

They are mocking Sholto's support of Levent. I thought Noam Borwn would be above this but i think the cutlure withitn OpenAI encourages it.

seems to me the Noam tweet was before the Sholto tweet?

2:47 am (eastern time for me) https://x.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902

2:59 am https://x.com/_sholtodouglas/status/2097218331690578000/

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#236

Post by hgoel »

postalcoder wrote: post #40
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 specu…

Especially after the blatant cover up of their uncontrolled bot swarm infesting the internet, and the feckless "hopefully we do better" response upon being caught, I don't think OpenAI deserves much grace until they properly explain themselves.

We had all assumed that surely the supposed smartest engineers in the world, with access to the most computing and a direct view of model capabilities, would take sandboxing and cybersecurity much more seriously than they have turned out to do. It follows that while we might assume they take user data privacy seriously and have tight controls on who can access it, it's possible they do not actually do that.

At this point any initial trust is dead and has to be re-earned.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#237

Post by mishellaneous »

golol wrote: post #230
mishellaneous wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

if you assume the choice of route is a uniformly distributed random variable, yes. but this assumption does not seem consistent with "Almost nobody else I know of was working on it", from Tristan's quote. nor with "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement".

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#238

Post by b89kim »

b89kim wrote: post #232

- Tristan and his co-author (Harvard/Anthropic) developed a theoretical framework and validated it using Codex and Claude. - OpenAI did related research around similar timeframe. - Tristan claimed OpenAI offered a proposal that included dropping the Anthropic-affiliated co-author. - Sebastian (a prominent OpenAI researcher involved) denied these claims. - Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their s…

If OpenAI's proposal is true, it strongly implies they accessed Tristan's private session logs. OpenAI's 'Terms of Use' allow using Codex session logs for model improvement. However, using private user sessions to develop research would still be highly controversial.

Separately, Terence Tao noted there is a low probability OpenAI actually solved the general regularity problem.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#239

Post by simianwords »

ajnin wrote: post #234
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.

> https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve... They explicitly say that they use your "content" to improve their models. Considering they practically have infinite compute at their disposal, why is it surprising that they would look for juicy data in there to make them look good ? When they ingested basically the entirety of human knowledge without regard to the rights of others, when they burn boo…

[flagged]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#240

Post by Readerium »

gcr wrote: post #225
tristanj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But then who is the third person in the call.
Post reply on HN