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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#171

Post by blueblisters »

Yajirobe wrote: post #124
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…

Why would Anthropic employee even use OpenAI's models? Cross-polination would have been avoided

This was completed in Levent's own time with a neutral collaborator.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#172

Post by colesantiago »

raincole wrote: post #144
applicative wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree.

Nobody cares and will care about the drama, it is just marketing.

This is the point where were definitely have reached AGI.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#173

Post by amluto »

peri-cl wrote: post #58
dorjoycb wrote: post #13

It seems like some other mathematicians (not affiliated with openAI) have also (or close to) done this. A statement was posted about the surrounding events by one of the them: https://cims.nyu.edu/%7Etristanb/statement.pdf Also Terrence Tao's post: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233528517340774

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…

> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models .

That’s a bizarre statement. Their website says:

> Services for individuals, such as ChatGPT and Codex

> When you use our services for individuals such as ChatGPT and Codex, we may use your content to train our models.

> You can opt out of training through our privacy portal by clicking on “do not train on my content.”

Are they not sure that the opt-out works?

Oddly, their privacy portal page is not the same page as the one with the checkbox.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#175

Post by denverllc »

lanthissa wrote: post #12
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.

over 5 days, you couldn't achieve that level of testing and communication with humans on such a complex problem in that amount of time. some might go so far as to call this a country of geniuses in a data center.

In a way, I think you have it backwards.

Two mathematicians, through insight and thought, wrote out the proof over 1-2 years.

It took OpenAI a cost of $15m and with 10,000 subagents; that's around 60-120 mathematician's salaries ($250k-125k salary) for 1 year.

And, given now the cloud that OpenAI may have just "interpolated" (aka stole) the result, it's even more of a bear case for AI.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#176

Post by amluto »

mlcrypto wrote: post #133
Yajirobe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Anthropic employee even use OpenAI's models? Cross-polination would have been avoided

They should have used a zero data retention agreement, user error

Hahaha, how exactly is an individual user supposed to get a ZDR agreement?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#177

Post by frotaur »

alasano wrote: post #21

I don't know about you guys, but I'm hyped about the future. Cure all illnesses Utopia or Robot Wars Dystopia, both are pretty exciting.

Not sure about the dystopia... Had a similar thought when covid was beginning 'wow pretty exciting, just like in the movies'.

Turns out actually living some terrible catastrophe is only fun in the movies.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#178

Post by mrbungie »

slibhb wrote: post #120
dorjoycb wrote: post #13

It seems like some other mathematicians (not affiliated with openAI) have also (or close to) done this. A statement was posted about the surrounding events by one of the them: https://cims.nyu.edu/%7Etristanb/statement.pdf Also Terrence Tao's post: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233528517340774

Worth noting that Tao's post says the authors had "significant AI input" but are reworking them into "acceptable form". Either way, it seems AI was involved.

Of course AI was involved, you'd expect most mathematicians and researchers to use AI nowadays. This drama is about AI achieving impressive outcomes with little to no human intervention, as that would be signalling AGI.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#179

Post by rakejake »

simonw wrote: post #45

> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . Once again, I'm no closer to understanding what https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve... actually means. If I run Codex against a project that includes a private API key, is there a chance a future user of ChatGPT could ask for an API key and get back mine? I've actu…

I'd think nothing is "safe". Anything you say can and will be used by the LLM if it has enough statistical similarity to the prompt. Call it "Ma Random Rights"

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#180

Post by stefap2 »

echelon wrote: post #53
tiborsaas wrote: post #16

> We’re sharing a solution to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problem, one of the Millennium Prize Problems. This proof, produced by an internal OpenAI system, shows that the dynamics of the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid motion can develop a singularity in finite time. We’re sharing both a writeup of the proof and a formalization in Lean. WOW?

This is going to be dramatic in so many different ways. - First off, to reiterate, WOW. - Second of all, when does this end? Are we at the dawn of the singularity now? - People are saying OpenAI "stole" this from the work of an OpenAI user. If so, that's pretty fucked - how can we trust them? - Time to think about retiring from any knowledge work or business? This could be winner-take-all where a leading lab can butt…

This just pushes knowledge work further up the ladder, toward larger and more complex problems. If there are no knowledge workers, who is going to interpret these results, validate them, decide what matters, and put them into practical use? Rather than eliminating knowledge work, advances like this could create entirely new layers of problems to solve and opportunities to pursue, which will create even more jobs and opportunities. This is my optimistic take.
Post reply on HN