Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#91

Post by applicative »

tedsanders wrote: post #41
pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

Is this the one that was allegedly based on someone else's actual work & prompts? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915 https://bsky.app/profile/quantian.bsky.social/post/3muyhwbcd... https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

Yes, that was the allegation last night. I work at OpenAI, though not on the team that did this, and my understanding is: - we decided to ask our model for Millenium problem solutions because of two reasons: (a) our new model was looking incredibly good and (b) we heard rumors that some Millenium problems had been solved and were curious if our models could solve them (the goal here was not to scoop any particular in…

Its funny, it is uniquely with this one act that I have turned forever on OpenAI, which I hitherto defended up and down against nonsense charges.

I dedicate my life to its complete destruction beginning today.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#92

Post by andrewguenther »

cute_boi wrote: post #65
floatrock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI's position: > We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results p…

I thought openai don't use any user data if we opt out of training and via api?

That is correct. It is possible they didn't opt out and given the timeline and anonymization of data unclear whether a particular conversation would have made it into the training set if they hadn't.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#93

Post by applicative »

Legend2440 wrote: post #31
Jonasori wrote: post #19

the context here is super important, for those who haven't seen it yet. OAI maybe just trained on a real researchers solution and then celebrated having scored the goal unassisted save for the brief commentary at the bottom of this blog post. Here's the other side. https://x.com/rynorhn/status/2097223532438487463

That other researcher was working on a smaller related problem. He was also using LLMs to do it, so either way most of the credit goes to the LLM here.

This is the end of OpenAI

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#94

Post by mswphd »

Legend2440 wrote: post #31
Jonasori wrote: post #19

the context here is super important, for those who haven't seen it yet. OAI maybe just trained on a real researchers solution and then celebrated having scored the goal unassisted save for the brief commentary at the bottom of this blog post. Here's the other side. https://x.com/rynorhn/status/2097223532438487463

That other researcher was working on a smaller related problem. He was also using LLMs to do it, so either way most of the credit goes to the LLM here.

both wrong.

1. he was working on the same class of problems. He explicitly mentions they were working to extend their techniques to NS (the same techniques that OpenAI may have scooped somehow), and

2. while he was using LLMs to do it, this was part of fleshing out another mathematician's work in the area. He explicitly writes in his note that this other mathematician (Luis Martinez-Zoroa) deserves a Fields medal for this work.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#95

Post by dash2 »

mewse-hn wrote: post #78

"we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." What a landmine sentence to bury in this report, you can't rule out your models were spying on other researchers?

If they had agreed to let OpenAI train on their data, it wouldn’t be spying.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#96

Post by applicative »

int3trap wrote: post #55
dmitrygr wrote: post #22

> How we found the proof Easy, we stole it from Levent and Tristan https://x.com/kyanyang_/status/2097211154669998337

This is the academic equivalent of Trump saying "they stole the election". There's no proof of it but rah rah fuck OpenAI. It's incredibly tiresome and you'd think people could put more effort into it than just following whatever vibes they agree with. Oh well.

No, its a pure outrage. I defended OpenAI til today. I now affirm they must be totally destroyed, burned utterly to the ground.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#97

Post by novia »

pred_ wrote: post #20
hmate9 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Napkin math if we assume gpt 6 astra on max is >$15 million (just for output tokens) for those wondering.

Yeah but they at least they got to steal $1 million from that nasty math prof who didn't want to remove his co-author.

They said in the post that they are NOT claiming the prize

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#99

Post by applicative »

colesantiago wrote: post #7

Is this truly the beginning of the AGI era? Running agents and prompting excessively to produce 'slopcode' to solve mathematical problems and generate a solution. If this is what anyone calls 'slop' then slop has no meaning. I'm all for it on the use case of solving mathematical breakthroughs!

except thats not what happened is it? https://cims.nyu.edu/%7Etristanb/statement.pdf

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#100

Post by vmasto »

recitedropper wrote: post #10

Sad turn of events for our world. After watching the behavior of the most senior OpenAI researchers on twitter, I feel even less confident in them as a team to be shepherding this much capital and compute. The dark forest awaits..

Indeed, this seems to be the main, albeit hidden, takeaway from all of this.
Post reply on HN