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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#281

Post by dgellow »

tedsanders wrote: post #181
lambda wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they rule it out? Is even OpenAI unable to track the provenance of all of their training data? This is one of the major problems with these enormous closed models, and even most open-weights models, which don't disclose their training process or training data. You can never be sure what went into its training. Did it come up with an idea originally, or is it just plagiarising its training data? Are there ma…

To truly prove some incidental usage data made no difference we'd have to (a) identify any of their de-identified data that came from their usage of ChatGPT, (b) train a bunch of expensive giant models, and (c) ask them all to solve the Navier-Stokes Millenium problem until hitting some level of statistical significance. It's just not feasible to run experiments like this to prove whether a piece of data has an effec…

> As a parallel example, can we prove the phase of the moon had no impact on the NS solution? No, not without a bunch experiments run at different phases of the moon.

That reads as incredibly dismissive and condescending. What makes you think you’re in a position to communicate like that when engaging on such a sensitive topic?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#282

Post by peri-cl »

Maxious wrote: post #205
igleria wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I´m waiting on the other side version, because I know there is no justifiable way to talk to a person like they did. Sociopathic behaviour.

OpenAI version of events conceed some of the words alleged to have been used may have been used https://x.com/sama/status/2097385167002415140 https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310

> "When we learned that they had Euler but not Navier-Stokes, we offered to let them go first, to suggest that they should be the ones to get the prize, and optionally for Tristan to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof. We felt it was challenging to offer the same to Levent (an Anthropic employee), who was not willing to talk or coordinate with us anyway. We were open to other solutions."

What an admission! "We tried to defraud Alpöge out of sharing the Millenium Prize (that we don't dispute he might actually deserve), for no other reason than he works for our competitor and that inconveniences us".

I thought Tristan Buckmaster's allegations sounded fantastic; and then 'sama just came out (tweet's ~30 minutes old) and admitted to all of them. Wow!

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#283

Post by scurnus »

mrbungie wrote: post #161
jrflo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of this "It's just marketing!!" commentary. An AI model just proved one of the top 3 unsolved problems in mathematics, they have a Lean certificate showing it's valid. How much more evidence do you need that these models are actually highly capable?

They are highly capable, no doubt about that, but: 1) We don't really know how they arrived to this result except that they had a lead and that they threw millions of compute at the problem. The article is written in a way that makes you believe that it was just an agent loop with little human intervention, but without any evidence. 2) If the threats are to be believed, it is concerning how far they are willing to go…

1) The article is written in a way that states clearly they threw a lot of compute at the problem. In api cost millions of dollars. 2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it.

Regarding product and credibility normal people have a completely different view about LLMs, most don't even know difference between models and probably don't even care about Millenium problems, but care instead if chatgpt can solve their day to day problems. This is just them trying to have the throne on the AI companies space, outside it this result won't matter.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#284

Post by thereitgoes456 »

chis wrote: post #230
matteoraso wrote: post #194

This is undeniably epochal, but I can't help but notice that this is yet another example of AI disproving rather than proving something. Is this just a coincidence, or does AI slightly struggle with proving theorems?[0] [0] Struggle relative to its ability to disprove, not struggle relative to people's ability to prove theorems.

I think you really have to squint to call this a disproof lol

It seems obvious what GP meant. It is, once again, an explicit construction (“disproving” that every initial state does not develop a singularity).

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#285

Post by [deleted] »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #186
lambda wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they rule it out? Is even OpenAI unable to track the provenance of all of their training data? This is one of the major problems with these enormous closed models, and even most open-weights models, which don't disclose their training process or training data. You can never be sure what went into its training. Did it come up with an idea originally, or is it just plagiarising its training data? Are there ma…

A careful reading of "we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models" could be saying that yes they trained on it but they don't know if that training data resulted in an "improvement" to the model. That is, they can't rule out that the only reason the model found this solution was because it had been trained on this approach. The term ruled out is very o…

[deleted]

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#286

Post by stymaar »

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

A company who made their business out of stealing intellectual property from the entire mankind, stealing other researchers' unpublished work, how surprising, really.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#287

Post by lwansbrough »

It would be nice if one of these models would produce a novel theory or advance the field in a positive direction.

Most (all?) of the big discoveries have been counterexamples, which is just sort of a systematic tearing down human ingenuity. I know that counterexamples are an important part of progress and discovery, but it just feels bad to me.

But I'm not a mathematician, maybe I'm totally misreading the vibe.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#288

Post by lambda »

tedsanders wrote: post #181
lambda wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they rule it out? Is even OpenAI unable to track the provenance of all of their training data? This is one of the major problems with these enormous closed models, and even most open-weights models, which don't disclose their training process or training data. You can never be sure what went into its training. Did it come up with an idea originally, or is it just plagiarising its training data? Are there ma…

To truly prove some incidental usage data made no difference we'd have to (a) identify any of their de-identified data that came from their usage of ChatGPT, (b) train a bunch of expensive giant models, and (c) ask them all to solve the Navier-Stokes Millenium problem until hitting some level of statistical significance. It's just not feasible to run experiments like this to prove whether a piece of data has an effec…

So, one way to prove that the data played no part is to trace and show that it wasn't used in the training process at all. If the data was never used in training, then it couldn't have played a part in the training process.

You're right; if the data was used in training, then it gets much trickier; it would be very difficult to show whether some particular data had a significant effect on the outcome.

This is one of the big problems with giant models like these; it becomes nearly impossible to discern what is and isn't plagiarism, or copyright violation.

It would in theory be possible to have things like n-gram databases or rolling hashes of training data, somewhat similar to OLMoTrace (https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07096), which would allow for detecting whether particular documents ended up in the training data or not (you'd have to keep this for every model used in the whole training chain, as synthetic data generated by earlier models could be influenced by training data that wasn't included in later models). I'm sure there are practical issues with providing such a tool, but I think that it's necessary if you want to be able to categorically say "no, this document has never been present in the training data of this model."

Or look at it the other way: if your model wasn't influenced by things in your training data, why include them in the first place? Clearly, you train on all of these documents because they influence the model. Yes, it's hard to trace the exact influence of each one. But if they're not affecting the output, then why not just stop training on them? You could just not train on any private documents; only train on public, traceable data.

But instead, you choose to train on these private documents, so you have to admit, your model and its outputs are influenced by them.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#290

Post by Kotlopou »

diomedes wrote: post #61

madness. which will be the next to fall? if i had to bet i would guess birch and swinnerton-dyer, but i'm no expert

No idea about which is more likely, but I'm rooting for Yang-Mills. It's absurd that fundamental physics has formulated its most precise currently known theory way back in the seventies and since then, even a tiny subset of it can't be proven to be actually well-defined. If we got out of that morass then something good would come out of this at least.

Of course, as with all of those, it's about the broader program, e.g. section 7 here (https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf), where Scott Aaronson wants to ask about whether quantum computers using quantum field theory could gain any speed advantage over regular quantum computers, but can't even formulate the question because quantum field theory is mathematically ill-defined.

Just solving Yang-Mills because that's what the prize is attached to would be useless.

Post reply on HN