Live data from Hacker News

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

cims.nyu.edu

291–300 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#291
This is why I left math even after solving a 20 year old conjecture in grad school.

Literally who cares who solved the problem just publish the results.

Academia was always politics first results second and I AM GLAD that LLMs are becoming superhuman at math. I like better theorems, not better politics.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career"… Proceeds to ask removal of another coauthor or else we totally discredit you - phrased as why would you do this to yourself.

Claiming OAI was going to "totally discredit" Buckmaster is baseless. From the article, it seems OAI wanted to continue discussing the situation with Buckmaster and reach a resolution, but Buckmaster did not want to, declined to respond, and published first. Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. There should be a lot more information from OAI's…

[deleted]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#293

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.

It's not as simple. All our chats are being used by both labs for their future product (unless signed by ZDR). Where should the acknowledgement begin? Who should be acknowledged? The whole world? All the 2B users of AI? If I know person A is working on problem B. I am free to work on problem B too. Why should person A be limited to working on it.

Are you free to intercept person A's emails / hack their computer to find their notes on how they're approaching problem B?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#295
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

Is it surprising that different groups are working on the same problems? With each new model generation, the LLMs get good enough to solve a new small fraction of open problems. Of course the problems that get solved are going to be the same subset.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#296
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?

It's here: https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#297
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…

> OpenAI says they would partially credit Tristan for the $1,000,000 discovery (even though Tristan did not solve the $1,000,000 problem) — but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic

well that sounds like an asshole move.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second, you miscomprehended the article. The employee did not "threaten to ruin a prominent researcher's career"… Proceeds to ask removal of another coauthor or else we totally discredit you - phrased as why would you do this to yourself.

Claiming OAI was going to "totally discredit" Buckmaster is baseless. From the article, it seems OAI wanted to continue discussing the situation with Buckmaster and reach a resolution, but Buckmaster did not want to, declined to respond, and published first. Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. There should be a lot more information from OAI's…

From the article, page 3:

  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. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an insane thing to read. Bubeck had a reputation even before he started with OpenAI. Of course it was him that was involved in this drama. This is such a sad mess, and it really didn't have to be this way.

What did he do?
Post reply on HN