(deleted)
Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
301–310 of 862 posts
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently forcing is allowed in the Millenium Prize problem statement. So OpenAI's claimed proof could win the prize. OTOH the results Tristan and Levent are publishing here do not go far enough to win the prize, though apparently they are suggestive of a general approach that could produce a solution, which seems likely to be the general approach OpenAI's proof uses. The question is whether OpenAI's pursuit of this…
Why do you find it to be extremely unlikely?
Winning a millennium prize is not worth the fallout of "we will steal your IP"
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#303(deleted)
Nitpick: his name is Sebastien
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#304So the AI companies are not only stealing existing knowledge. They are also stealing research to "snipe" actual researchers out and steal their social credit.
Who still wants to use AI to solve cancer and other major problems?
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#305Drama/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…
It's specifically the last two bullet poitns
- Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training.
- 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.
These two bullet points are extremely suspicious if you were honest. Like I'd imagine for OpenAI, they'd love to pump their chest and not even give Tristan credit - "no, we did it, GG mathematicians". It's this weird hedging half-assed measure, especially with the desire to remove Levent, that makes it suspicious.
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#306Drama/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…
please could you change 'drama' and 'accusation' to something more formal like 'allegation'.
the paper makes a very serious allegation of dishonesty and possible academic misconduct.
the governance and integrity of openai is of importance to the welfare of society. this is not a matter of drama.
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#307Drama/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…
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.
if training is on, they are reading user prompts. training is on by default.
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#308Hard mathematics problems used to take years if not decades to tackle manually. But now with enough compute and a hint that a certain approach might work, it just takes a few days. This could be the last year that humans could still make more substantial contribution to major match problems than machines.
And everyone should be glad for that!
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)...
Okay suppose that you have a trillion dollar competitor salivating at the mouth to ruin your business, which is based on user privacy.
Why would you risk the trillions of dollars worth of business for the niche result of Navier-Stokes, which your average person cannot differentiate from a JEMS paper?
Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]
#310This 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.
Uh but here we have non-academics at for-profit companies playing politics, and the academic they're threatening being kind and overly generous?