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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#291

Post by kzrdude »

famouswaffles wrote: post #29
mapmeld wrote: post #18

> Our goal in releasing this result is to report on the substantial progress of our AI models. We do not intend to claim the Millennium Prize for this result. Does OpenAI have a policy of not claiming math prizes like this, or is this them trying to avoid any concerns (right or wrong, I'm sure we will hear more in the future) about how they got there?

>Does OpenAI have a policy of not claiming math prizes like this Wouldn't be surprising if they did. The prize money isn't worth the almost certainly negative PR.

I don't see how it would be negative PR. If anything, the love these breakthroughs and use it in their PR campaigns.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#293

Post by denverllc »

mrbungie wrote: post #178
slibhb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This drama is about AI achieving impressive outcomes with little to no human intervention

That's not at all what the drama is.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#294

Post by credit_guy »

naveen99 wrote: post #81
arctic-true wrote: post #35

Buried under the drama is the fact that OpenAI is claiming that an internal model they’ve been training for less than two weeks is more than twice as capable in mathematics as Astra, which was only made public a week ago. Even if this improvement is limited to mathematics, that is an astounding feat.

Astra was trained more than two weeks ago.

The internal model they mention is different from Astra.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#295

Post by igleria »

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…

> (the goal here was not to scoop any particular individuals and we were looking at many problems beyond these)

That is your opinion, but the optics of that should raise for you some flags. OAI could have waited (how long is a task left to the ethics committee) to see how the rumors panned out. Right now the optics look a lot like "we don´t care there is a 1/7 chance we one-up a human researcher by reacting to this rumor immediately, might makes right"

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#296

Post by charm137 »

colinhb wrote: post #122
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

The allegations of contamination (using Tristan and Levent's work) aren't very well evidenced, but this behavior by OpenAI (from the authors' statement) makes them seem like the bad guys: > I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin…

It's astounding that the thought to dissociate one of the mathematicians from the proposed publication was driven by their corporate institutional affiliation - and that that exclusion was suggested by a scientist themselves! This is like a researcher from CMU saying to an NYU researcher that their collaborator, being from MIT, is a problem - this is as ridiculous as that!

Progress in humanity's knowledge now has to play second fiddle to narrow corporate interests as IPO timings near (both of which wouldn't exist anyway if generations of mathematicians hadn't paved the way for AIs to become as good as they have).

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#297

Post by mlsu »

munificent wrote: post #217
stefap2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This just pushes knowledge work further up the ladder, toward larger and more complex problems. You really think it makes sense for you to be higher on the "solving complex problems ladder" than the machines that solved fucking Navier-Stokes? I envy your self-confidence.

It seems like there were a couple of human mathematicians that were higher on the 'solving complex problems ladder' than this machine.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#298

Post by dgellow »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #267
colinhb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The allegations of contamination (using Tristan and Levent's work) aren't very well evidenced, but this behavior by OpenAI (from the authors' statement) makes them seem like the bad guys: > I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin…

Their own tweets are also pretty eyebrow-raising: > One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Why would you offer another researcher the lead authorship on your g…

And why cannot they have someone associated with Anthropic as co-author? That’s not obvious at all. For sure they would prefer to be the only ones, but it’s pretty standard to have co-authors from different companies, even if they are technically competitors. What is inappropriate about it?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#299

Post by hkmaxpro »

colinhb wrote: post #122
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

The allegations of contamination (using Tristan and Levent's work) aren't very well evidenced, but this behavior by OpenAI (from the authors' statement) makes them seem like the bad guys: > I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin…

Both Sam Altman and Sebastien Bubeck admitted they only want Buckmaster to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof.

https://x.com/sama/status/2097385167002415140

https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310

A wake up call for using OpenAI models. If you discover something with their model and you work for a competitor, they “felt it would be inappropriate” for you “to author OpenAI’s work”.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#300

Post by kzrdude »

stabbles wrote: post #84
jgbuddy wrote: post #63

Here's the formalization / lean verification: https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler

341k lines of lean without comments

The construction is that there is one file you need read and verify, the challenge file. If you've verified that file and trust that your lean compiler works correctly, the proof will be correct.

That file should be https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler/blob/main/Com... in this case (286 lines).

Post reply on HN