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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#141

Post by colesantiago »

applicative wrote: post #96
int3trap wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why the rage?

Weather an individual or a company found the solution (stolen or not) they both used AI to come get the solution.

We have AGI and the intelligence abundance is going to be amazing for everyone in the future.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#142

Post by railgunmerlin »

pwign wrote: post #126
railgunmerlin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right, surely they could've waited or even reached out? It reads as desperation to get there for marketing purposes

They did reach out. > Our effort began on September 1st after hearing a rumor which we later realized was related to Levent Alpöge, an Anthropic employee, and Tristan Buckmaster, a math professor at NYU. After the completion of our full project and Lean verification (on September 6th), believing from the rumor they also had a solution of Navier–Stokes, we reached out to them to offer a concurrent release of our resul…

[dead]

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#144

Post by raincole »

applicative wrote: post #93
Legend2440 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This will be remembered as one of the biggest milestones in AI progress. The drama around it will at best be a footnote, just like hardly anyone caring about the drama around Poincare conjecture today.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#145

Post by bluecalm »

A huge result shadowed by a drama of them potentially training on the key idea. I guess the lesson is two-fold: if you have anything smart/unique make sure to not let their tools read it. The second part is that it's going to be more and more difficult to have anything smart and unique going forward (so guard it even more carefully if you get there).

I think the market for local models/private datacenters (for bigger businesses) is going to be big. Even if you don't have unique tech/idea/implementation sharing your business secrets with Altman/Dario/Elon/Zuck doesn't look very appealing going forward.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#146

Post by rfgplk »

pred_ wrote: post #62

> A major goal of our work is to empower scientists to advance research and technology that benefits all of humanity. And what's a better way of empowering people than robbing them.

> And what's a better way of empowering people than robbing them.

Better than the walled gardens of most journals where you can't even read half the papers without shelling over thousands of $$$

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#147

Post by rakejake »

paxys wrote: post #37
railgunmerlin wrote: post #25

Does seem like they gloss over Alpöge and Buckmaster's work with the following > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . Which seems a bit irresponsible/rash?

What else can they declare really? Yeah the model has training data from previous attempts. Alpöge and Buckmaster also similarly benefited from attempts before theirs.

I don't think OAI should be given the benefit of doubt. They are doing the research equivalent of front-running. Knowing where to look is one of the main challenges in research. Tristan's argument from his essay was that it is hard to brute force with a vanilla prompt (even for seasoned mathematicians) unless you knew very specifically what to mention i.e the search space would have been intractable even for OAI's compute budget.

"deidentified data" isn't much to go by. Say I prompted the internal model this way - "Hey there's a solution to a unsolved problem X. The solution uses a less known Method Y so don't bother wasting time with the usual methods. Take papers A, B and C as references. Oh btw, here's the last year's worth of data of all prompt sessions that mention this problem. Pay special attention to the ones that mention Method Y and sub-keywords Z,W".

This is obviously all speculation but the timing is very suspect. If OAI actually did this (and I suspect whatever they did is pretty much close to this), I think it is highly unethical.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#148

Post by denverllc »

heaney-555 wrote: post #72
pred_ wrote: post #62

> A major goal of our work is to empower scientists to advance research and technology that benefits all of humanity. And what's a better way of empowering people than robbing them.

[flagged]

Are you reading the substance of the comments you're replying to? Because you post the same thing to everyone, suggesting you aren't.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#149

Post by sophacles »

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.

Good comparison. One is a multi-year claim by people who have been given ample opportunity to provide proof and completely refuse to do, even in courts of law. The other is a potential development in a breaking story.

Oh wait... its not a good comparrison, its an incredibly obvious false equivalence.

Note for the fools: I'm only commenting on the bad faith claim in the comment I'm replying to, not taking a stance on the validity of theft claims. Given the players involved the truth probably some nuanced middle-ground that is worth paying attention to anyway.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#150

Post by ChoosesBarbecue »

jrflo wrote: post #88
peri-cl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buckmaster: > "I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer." OpenAI (i.e. this OP): > "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helpe…

I feel like it's far more likely that ordinary corporate espionage or leak led to this rather than OpenAI sifting through piles of user data to find this approach. Buckmaster's collaborator works at Anthropic, and could have been targeted. That would also explain why they aren't forthcoming with the source of the prompt.

I thought one of the issues was that they wanted to remove credit from Levant, the aforementioned Anthropic collaborator? Which doesn't make sense to me if he was leaking information, or defecting to OpenAI, but I might be misunderstanding your point.
Post reply on HN