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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#301

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

#302

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).

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#303

Post by 20k »

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.

Are you joking? This is evidence that OpenAI is committing plagiarism en masse of researchers private work and threatening them into staying quiet to re-present their results as their own. This would be one of the largest scandals of all time

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#304

Post by tedsanders »

hexomancer wrote: post #222
tedsanders wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you definitely did train on their data, you just think it is unlikely that it impacted the final model significantly?

I have no idea if their data was trained on. For example, if they used ChatGPT, asked a math question, and clicked the thumbs up button, that could have provided a small reward signal. I highly doubt this sort of feedback made a difference to a problem like Navier-Stokes, but it's not something that's feasible for us to prove one way or the other.

Edit: Also, if they opted out of training, then we didn't train on it.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#308

Post by 20k »

aizk wrote: post #52

People had joked a couple years ago "Well if they solve a Millenium problem it's AGI"... Well here we are.

Yeah well, its easy to do if you steal someone elses work and then try to threaten them into staying quiet about it

Edit:

OpenAI have now admitted they were training on prompts at the time they made their breakthrough:

https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/11723647135247030...

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#309

Post by onidj »

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…

>- Do "normies" even know what's happening?

Absolutely not. Even to a lot of techy/nerdy people it's still just a chatbot that they sometimes use to help them at work. Even on here people will do whatever they can to downplay.

The lack of fucks given is staggering.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#310

Post by olalonde »

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…

Playing the devil's advocate here but it's true that OpenAI didn't have to make those offers.
Post reply on HN